Conference Agenda

Compulsory care for adolescents with anorexia nervosa (AN) is characterized by relational themes with the tension between the need to trust in order to recover and the power dynamics of coercive practices operating at the heart of treatment, especially in crisis care. Surprisingly, empirical evidence for this type of care is a) mostly lacking and b) flawed by primarily focusing on quantitative methods. Compulsory care is controversial given its negative impact on adolescents and their families. Finally, ethical dilemmas are commonplace in compulsory care while the time and space to discuss these dilemmas in detail is usually lacking in crisis care. Therefore, this paper focuses on presenting three case reports wherein an alternative treatment policy was applied in crisis care following ethical dlimmas in treatment. Conceptual implications for the treatment rationale for anorexia nervosa will be discussed based on qualitative analyses of the recovery process of the three cases. Furthermore, future qualitative studies will be discussed in order to further develop the field of compulsory care for AN.

Comorbidity between eating disorders (EDs) and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has long been investigated. Recent meta-analyses reported lifetime prevalences of OCD in EDs ranging from 13.9% to 18%, with up to 40% in follow-up studies (Drakes et al., 2021; Mandelli et al., 2020). Despite the extensive quantitative research focusing on the nature of this comorbidity and potential contributing mechanisms, there is a lack of qualitative studies. Given the heterogeneity of symptoms in both disorders and the adverse outcomes associated with the co-occurrence of OCD and EDs (Sallet et al 2010), a qualitative exploration of lived experiences could provide deeper insights into this association and how individuals experience this relationship. Therefore, this study aims to understand how individuals who have both OCD and EDs make sense of and experience the comorbidity. Employing interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA), semi-structured interviews were conducted with six individuals diagnosed with both OCD and an ED across the UK. Interview questions focused on receiving diagnoses, their interactions and impacts, and the contributing factors to the comorbidity. Transcriptions of the interviews have been completed, and the analysis is currently in progress. The final findings derived from the IPA analysis will be presented at the conference.

Background and Aims: Conflicts among healthcare professionals directly affect patient care, highlighting the need to understand their characteristics. Self-justification, a common yet understudied conflict indicator, was the focus of this study. We aimed to develop a qualitative method to analyse its features using narratives from healthcare professionals across cultures.

Methods: We analysed previously recorded semi-structured interviews of 25 doctors and 25 nurses from Hungary (transcribed) and from the USA (field notes). The analysis identified expressions of self-justification and avoidance of self-justification.

Results: We identified 371 expressions indicating self-justification and 42 indicating avoidance in the Hungarian conflict stories and categorized them into 10 self-justification-related categories and one avoidance category. In the U.S. sample, 210 expressions of self-justification and 40 of avoidance were similarly coded. The most common category in both samples was Judgement, typically involving negative evaluations of others. Hungarian doctors accounted for 71.7% of self-justification expressions, compared to 28.3% by nurses, while the U.S. sample showed no significant difference. Unresolved conflict narratives in both samples featured more self-justification and fewer avoidance expressions.

Discussion: Self-justification in conflict narratives may impede constructive conflict resolution. Supporting healthcare professionals in recognizing and addressing self-justification tendencies is therefore vital for fostering effective conflict resolution.

While the negative effects of financial scarcity on health are well-known, the positive impacts of financial resources on recovery are less explored. Quantitative methods demonstrate that money alleviates many adverse effects of scarcity. However, I argue that the positive impact of money should be studied qualitatively, where money not only mitigates scarcity but also serves as a source of freedom. For this, I employ Amartya Sen's capability approach.

My research examines the rehabilitation allowance provided by Kela to support recovery. Through interviews with 78 participants, I analyze the allowance’s role in promoting health and recovery.

The rehabilitation allowance alleviates constant worry about income, improves health, and facilitates better nutrition and sleep. It supports professional development by reducing the mental pressures related to academic progress. Additionally, the allowance helps build financial skills, breaking cycles of debt.

From the capability perspective, income transfers should not be based on the notion that scarcity motivates everyone towards goals like studying and saving money. Instead, for those experiencing mental distress, these should be individual choices enabled by rehabilitation allowances. When money provides opportunities and freedoms, studies can progress quickly, and individuals can start saving and even investing money.