ArticleBMC psychiatry2025
Feasibility and acceptability of a peer-led mindful self-compassion program for adults with eating disorder symptoms.
Article in BMC psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe implementation of peer-led programs provided by individuals with lived experience of mental disorders has been increasingly acknowledged as a key component in improving the quality of mental health services. When considering research on eating disorders, peer-led online programs may be an alternative approach to enhancing participants' well-being. Furthermore, increasing evidence suggests that mindful self-compassion (MSC) may be a helpful approach to strengthening self-compassion as a prevention program for eating disorders. However, the feasibility and acceptability of online group-based peer-led MSC programs remain unexplored in this context.
methodsIn this pilot study, using a single-arm pre-post pilot design, lived experience experts delivered and managed the program themselves and collected the data. Participatory action research principles informed the study's quantitative design. Adults with symptoms of eating disorders were invited to participate. The primary outcome was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the MSC program, measured by the dropout rate, attendance rate, and client satisfaction. As a secondary outcome, the program's preliminary efficacy on self-compassion and psychological well-being was investigated.
resultsTwenty-five people contacted the user organization, and all agreed to participate. However, 18 participants (78%) responded to the questionnaires at both measurement points. Two participants dropped out. The attendance rate was excellent, with 35% of the participants achieving 100% attendance, 39% completing seven of the eight group sessions (87.5% attendance), and 26% of the participants achieving 75% attendance. The participants reported to be very satisfied with the MSC program, with a total mean score of 14.4 (SD = 1.42, 95% CI [13.7, 15.1]) out of a maximum of 16 points. The participants also showed significant improvement in self-compassion and psychological well-being.
conclusionsThe findings indicate that the program was both feasible and acceptable for adults with eating disorder symptoms. Additionally, participants reported significant improvements in self-compassion and psychological well-being. However, as this was the first study to examine such a program in this context, these preliminary findings warrant further research. Nonetheless, these findings suggest that peer-led online MSC programs may offer an accessible, community-rooted, and person-centered addition to ED services, particularly for individuals underserved by traditional models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.