Rachel Bachner-Melman1,2, Jan Alexander de Vos3, Ada H Zohar4, Michal Shalom4, Beth Mcgilley5, Kielty Oberlin6, Leslie Murray7, Andrea Lamarre8, Suzanne Dooley-Hash9. 1. Ruppin Academic Center (Clinical Psychology Graduate Program), Emek Hefer, Israel. rachel.bachner@mail.huji.ac.il. 2. Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. rachel.bachner@mail.huji.ac.il. 3. Stichting Human Concern, Centre for eHealth and Well-Being Research, Centrum voor eetstoornissen, Twente University, Enschede, Netherlands. 4. Ruppin Academic Center (Clinical Psychology Graduate Program), Emek Hefer, Israel. 5. Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS, USA. 6. Trinity College Dublin's Schools of Psychology and Nursing, Dublin 2, Ireland. 7. Naval Medical Center Portsmouth, Portsmouth, VA, USA. 8. Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand. 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explores the perspectives and opinions towards ED clinicians with lived experience of ED. METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-five ED clinicians and 124 non-clinicians from 13 countries, between 18 and 76 years of age completed an online survey about attitudes towards ED clinicians with a personal ED history. Almost half the respondents (n = 242, 47.5%) reported a lifetime ED diagnosis. Survey items included ten multiple-choice and three open questions about clinician disclosure, employer hiring practices, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of clinicians with a personal ED history practicing in the ED field. Multiple-choice responses from clinicians with and without a personal ED history were compared with responses from non-clinicians with and without a personal ED history. Open questions were examined using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians with no ED history, whose responses often differed from both ED-history groups (clinicians and non-clinicians), were more likely to indicate that clinicians with an ED should not generally treat ED patients, and that clinicians should self-disclose their ED history to employers but not to their patients. Thematic analysis of the open-ended questions revealed that advantages of having clinicians with an ED history include a deep experiential understanding and the ability to be empathic and non-judgmental, whereas disadvantages include the lack of objectivity and the risk of clinicians being triggered. CONCLUSION: Further research informing guidelines for ED clinicians with a personal ED history, their colleagues and employers are needed to protect and empower the significant minority of ED professionals with "lived experience" of EDs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control analytic study.
PURPOSE: This study explores the perspectives and opinions towards ED clinicians with lived experience of ED. METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-five ED clinicians and 124 non-clinicians from 13 countries, between 18 and 76 years of age completed an online survey about attitudes towards ED clinicians with a personal ED history. Almost half the respondents (n = 242, 47.5%) reported a lifetime ED diagnosis. Survey items included ten multiple-choice and three open questions about clinician disclosure, employer hiring practices, and perceived advantages and disadvantages of clinicians with a personal ED history practicing in the ED field. Multiple-choice responses from clinicians with and without a personal ED history were compared with responses from non-clinicians with and without a personal ED history. Open questions were examined using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians with no ED history, whose responses often differed from both ED-history groups (clinicians and non-clinicians), were more likely to indicate that clinicians with an ED should not generally treat ED patients, and that clinicians should self-disclose their ED history to employers but not to their patients. Thematic analysis of the open-ended questions revealed that advantages of having clinicians with an ED history include a deep experiential understanding and the ability to be empathic and non-judgmental, whereas disadvantages include the lack of objectivity and the risk of clinicians being triggered. CONCLUSION: Further research informing guidelines for ED clinicians with a personal ED history, their colleagues and employers are needed to protect and empower the significant minority of ED professionals with "lived experience" of EDs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control analytic study.
Authors: Anna M Bardone-Cone; Megan B Harney; Christine R Maldonado; Melissa A Lawson; D Paul Robinson; Roma Smith; Aneesh Tosh Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2009-11-13