Jake Linardon1, Adrian Shatte2, Hannah Tepper1, Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz1,3. 1. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. 2. School of Science, Engineering and Information Technology, Federation University, Victoria, Melbourne, Australia. 3. Center for Social and Early Emotional Development, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: E-therapy shows promise as a solution to the barriers that stand in the way of people receiving eating disorder (ED) treatment. Despite the potential for e-therapy to reduce the well-known treatment gap, little is known about public views and perspectives on this mode of intervention delivery. This study explored attitudes toward, and preferences for, e-therapy among individuals spanning the spectrum of eating pathology. METHOD: Survey data assessing e-therapy attitudes and preferences were analyzed from 713 participants recruited from the public. Participants were categorized into one of five subgroups based on the type of self-reported ED symptoms and severity/risk level, ranging from high risk to a probable threshold or subthreshold ED. RESULTS: Attitudes toward e-therapies appeared to be relatively positive; participants largely supported health care insurance coverage of costs for e-therapies, and were optimistic about the wide-ranging benefits of e-therapy. Although three-quarters of participants expressed a preference for face-to-face therapy, a significant percentage of participants (∼50%) reported an intention to use an e-therapy program for current or future eating problems, with intention ratings highest (70%) among those with probable bulimia nervosa (BN). Variables associated with an e-therapy preference were not currently receiving psychotherapy, more positive e-therapy attitudes, and greater stigma associated with professional help-seeking. Variables associated with e-therapy intentions were more positive e-therapy attitudes and a probable BN classification. CONCLUSIONS: Present findings have important implications for increasing online intervention acceptance, engagement, and help-seeking among those at different stages of illness.
OBJECTIVE: E-therapy shows promise as a solution to the barriers that stand in the way of people receiving eating disorder (ED) treatment. Despite the potential for e-therapy to reduce the well-known treatment gap, little is known about public views and perspectives on this mode of intervention delivery. This study explored attitudes toward, and preferences for, e-therapy among individuals spanning the spectrum of eating pathology. METHOD: Survey data assessing e-therapy attitudes and preferences were analyzed from 713 participants recruited from the public. Participants were categorized into one of five subgroups based on the type of self-reported ED symptoms and severity/risk level, ranging from high risk to a probable threshold or subthreshold ED. RESULTS: Attitudes toward e-therapies appeared to be relatively positive; participants largely supported health care insurance coverage of costs for e-therapies, and were optimistic about the wide-ranging benefits of e-therapy. Although three-quarters of participants expressed a preference for face-to-face therapy, a significant percentage of participants (∼50%) reported an intention to use an e-therapy program for current or future eating problems, with intention ratings highest (70%) among those with probable bulimia nervosa (BN). Variables associated with an e-therapy preference were not currently receiving psychotherapy, more positive e-therapy attitudes, and greater stigma associated with professional help-seeking. Variables associated with e-therapy intentions were more positive e-therapy attitudes and a probable BN classification. CONCLUSIONS: Present findings have important implications for increasing online intervention acceptance, engagement, and help-seeking among those at different stages of illness.
Authors: John Torous; Sandra Bucci; Imogen H Bell; Lars V Kessing; Maria Faurholt-Jepsen; Pauline Whelan; Andre F Carvalho; Matcheri Keshavan; Jake Linardon; Joseph Firth Journal: World Psychiatry Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 49.548
Authors: Sara K Nutley; Alyssa M Falise; Rebecca Henderson; Vasiliki Apostolou; Carol A Mathews; Catherine W Striley Journal: JMIR Ment Health Date: 2021-01-27
Authors: Fernando Fernández-Aranda; Lucero Munguía; Gemma Mestre-Bach; Trevor Steward; Mikel Etxandi; Isabel Baenas; Roser Granero; Isabel Sánchez; Emilio Ortega; Alba Andreu; Violeta L Moize; Jose M Fernández-Real; Francisco J Tinahones; Carlos Diegüez; Gema Frühbeck; Daniel Le Grange; Kate Tchanturia; Andreas Karwautz; Michael Zeiler; Angela Favaro; Laurence Claes; Koen Luyckx; Ia Shekriladze; Eduardo Serrano-Troncoso; Teresa Rangil; Maria Eulalia Loran Meler; Jose Soriano-Pacheco; Mar Carceller-Sindreu; Sara Bujalance-Arguijo; Meritxell Lozano; Raquel Linares; Carlota Gudiol; Jordi Carratala; Jessica Sanchez-Gonzalez; Paulo Pp Machado; Anders Håkansson; Ferenc Túry; Bea Pászthy; Daniel Stein; Hana Papezová; Brigita Bax; Mikhail F Borisenkov; Sergey V Popov; Youl-Ri Kim; Michiko Nakazato; Nathalie Godart; Robert van Voren; Tetiana Ilnytska; Jue Chen; Katie Rowlands; Janet Treasure; Susana Jiménez-Murcia Journal: Eur Eat Disord Rev Date: 2020-09-20