ArticleJournal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent2025
Generating Priorities in Eating Disorder Research: Recommendations from Canadian Young Adults and Caregivers.
Article in Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry = Journal de l'Academie canadienne de psychiatrie de l'enfant et de l'adolescent, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Consensus-building approaches have seldom been used to develop research priorities informed by young adults and caregivers with lived eating disorder (ED) experience. Objective: To identify the most important research priorities among Canadian young adults and caregivers affected by EDs. Method: Using the Nominal Group Technique (NGT), we recruited Canadian young adults (ages 18-29) with pediatric ED treatment experience and their caregivers to participate in two separate NGT panels. The panels consisted of four stages: silent generation, round robin sharing, discussion, and ranking of the generated priorities. Priorities were weighted using a points system and later added to produce a total score for young adults and caregivers. Informed by Qualitative Description, qualitative content analysis was conducted to analyze the discussion portion of the panels. Results: The young adult ( Conclusions: Future research opportunities based on these generated priorities have the potential to improve alignment and relevance between ED research being conducted and the needs of young adults and caregivers affected by EDs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41890605PMC13016579What 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.