↓ Skip to main content

The three-legged stool of evidence-based practice in eating disorder treatment: research, clinical, and patient perspectives

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (84th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
twitter
25 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
177 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The three-legged stool of evidence-based practice in eating disorder treatment: research, clinical, and patient perspectives
Published in
BMC Medicine, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12916-016-0615-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carol B. Peterson, Carolyn Black Becker, Janet Treasure, Roz Shafran, Rachel Bryant-Waugh

Abstract

Evidence-based practice in eating disorders incorporates three essential components: research evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values, preferences, and characteristics. Conceptualized as a 'three-legged stool' by Sackett et al. in 1996 (BMJ), all of these components of evidence-based practice are considered essential for providing optimal care in the treatment of eating disorders. However, the extent to which these individual aspects of evidence-based practice are valued among clinicians and researchers is variable, with each of these stool 'legs' being neglected at times. As a result, empirical support and patient preferences for treatment are not consistently considered in the selection and implementation of eating disorder treatment. In addition, clinicians may not have access to training to provide treatments supported by research and preferred by patients. Despite these challenges, integrating these three components of evidence-based practice is critical for the effective treatment of eating disorders. Current research supports the use of several types of psychotherapies, including cognitive-behavioral, interpersonal, and family-based therapies, as well as certain types of medications for the treatment of eating disorders. However, limitations in current research, including sample heterogeneity, inconsistent efficacy, a paucity of data, the need for tailored approaches, and the use of staging models highlight the need for clinical expertise. Although preliminary data also support the importance of patient preferences, values, and perspectives for optimizing treatment, enhancing treatment outcome, and minimizing attrition among patients with eating disorders, the extent to which patient preference is consistently predictive of outcome is less clear and requires further investigation. All three components of evidence-based practice are integral for the optimal treatment of eating disorders. Integrating clinical expertise and patient perspective may also facilitate the dissemination of empirically-supported and emerging treatments as well as prevention programs. Further research is imperative to identify ways in which this three-legged approach to eating disorder treatment could be most effectively implemented.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 177 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 175 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 20%
Student > Bachelor 33 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Researcher 15 8%
Other 25 14%
Unknown 36 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 73 41%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 7%
Social Sciences 8 5%
Neuroscience 7 4%
Other 16 9%
Unknown 40 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 45. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 06 July 2023.
All research outputs
#907,786
of 25,210,618 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#635
of 3,946 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,857
of 307,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#8
of 46 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,210,618 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,946 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 46 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.