Anna M Bardone-Cone1, Rowan A Hunt2, Hunna J Watson3,4,5. 1. Department of Psychology & Neuroscience, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB #3270 Davie Hall, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. bardonecone@unc.edu. 2. Department of Psychology, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 4. School of Psychology, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia, Australia. 5. School of Paediatrics and Child Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth, Western Australia, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review delineates issues in the conceptualization and operationalization of eating disorder recovery, highlights recent findings about recovery (since 2016), and proposes future directions. RECENT FINDINGS: A longstanding problem in the field is that there are almost as many different definitions of recovery in eating disorders as there are studies on the topic. Yet, there has been a general shift to accepting that psychological/cognitive symptoms are important to recovery in addition to physical and behavioral indices. Further, several operationalizations of recovery have been proposed over the past two decades, and some efforts to validate operationalizations exist. However, this work has had limited impact and uptake, such that the field is suffering from "broken record syndrome," where calls are made for universal definitions time and time again. It is critical that proposed operationalizations be compared empirically to help arrive at a consensus definition and that institutional/organizational support help facilitate this. Themes in recent recovery research include identifying predictors, examining biological/neuropsychological factors, and considering severe and enduring anorexia nervosa. From qualitative research, those who have experienced eating disorders highlight recovery as a journey, as well as factors such as hope, self-acceptance, and benefiting from support from others as integral to the process of recovery. The field urgently needs to implement a universal definition of recovery that is backed by evidence, that can parsimoniously be implemented in clinical practice, and that will lead to greater harmonization of scientific findings.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review delineates issues in the conceptualization and operationalization of eating disorder recovery, highlights recent findings about recovery (since 2016), and proposes future directions. RECENT FINDINGS: A longstanding problem in the field is that there are almost as many different definitions of recovery in eating disorders as there are studies on the topic. Yet, there has been a general shift to accepting that psychological/cognitive symptoms are important to recovery in addition to physical and behavioral indices. Further, several operationalizations of recovery have been proposed over the past two decades, and some efforts to validate operationalizations exist. However, this work has had limited impact and uptake, such that the field is suffering from "broken record syndrome," where calls are made for universal definitions time and time again. It is critical that proposed operationalizations be compared empirically to help arrive at a consensus definition and that institutional/organizational support help facilitate this. Themes in recent recovery research include identifying predictors, examining biological/neuropsychological factors, and considering severe and enduring anorexia nervosa. From qualitative research, those who have experienced eating disorders highlight recovery as a journey, as well as factors such as hope, self-acceptance, and benefiting from support from others as integral to the process of recovery. The field urgently needs to implement a universal definition of recovery that is backed by evidence, that can parsimoniously be implemented in clinical practice, and that will lead to greater harmonization of scientific findings.
Authors: Stephen Wonderlich; James E Mitchell; Ross D Crosby; Tricia Cook Myers; Kelly Kadlec; Kim Lahaise; Lorraine Swan-Kremeier; Julie Dokken; Marnie Lange; Janna Dinkel; Michelle Jorgensen; Linda Schander Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2012-01-23 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Anna Keski-Rahkonen; Anu Raevuori; Cynthia M Bulik; Hans W Hoek; Aila Rissanen; Jaakko Kaprio Journal: Int J Eat Disord Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 4.861
Authors: Beate Wild; Hans-Christoph Friederich; Stephan Zipfel; Gaby Resmark; Katrin Giel; Martin Teufel; Dieter Schellberg; Bernd Löwe; Martina de Zwaan; Almut Zeeck; Stephan Herpertz; Markus Burgmer; Jörn von Wietersheim; Sefik Tagay; Andreas Dinkel; Wolfgang Herzog Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: N Egger; B Wild; S Zipfel; F Junne; A Konnopka; U Schmidt; M de Zwaan; S Herpertz; A Zeeck; B Löwe; J von Wietersheim; S Tagay; M Burgmer; A Dinkel; W Herzog; H-H König Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2016-09-09 Impact factor: 7.723
Authors: Jessica C Scaife; Lauren R Godier; Andrea Reinecke; Catherine J Harmer; Rebecca J Park Journal: Psychiatry Res Neuroimaging Date: 2016-10-18 Impact factor: 2.376
Authors: Katrin Elisabeth Giel; Peter Martus; Kathrin Schag; Stephan Herpertz; Tobias Hofmann; Antonius Schneider; Martin Teufel; Ulrich Voderholzer; Jörn von Wietersheim; Beate Wild; Almut Zeeck; Wolfgang Bethge; Ulrike Schmidt; Stephan Zipfel; Florian Junne Journal: J Eat Disord Date: 2021-05-19
Authors: Katherine Schaumberg; Erin E Reilly; Sasha Gorrell; Cheri A Levinson; Nicholas R Farrell; Tiffany A Brown; Kathryn M Smith; Lauren M Schaefer; Jamal H Essayli; Ann F Haynos; Lisa M Anderson Journal: Clin Psychol Rev Date: 2020-11-11