Search

Medically compromised people with anorexia nervosa are cared for in inpatient settings where clinicians closely monitor health and safety. Clinicians are in a position of power, with the capacity to impose mandated weight gain to achieve medical stabilisation. Consumers are in a vulnerable position, compelled to temporarily relinquish autonomy and to accept coercive practices that often diminish the quality of the therapeutic relationship. Clinicians' position of power in mental healthcare has a dual potential for both healing and harm, and limited attention has been given to consumers' views of clinicians' power. The aim of this qualitative descriptive study was to investigate the consumer perspective of clinicians' power in the inpatient care of anorexia nervosa, establishing insight into the beneficence and maleficence of the power asymmetry. Ten women with anorexia nervosa in the community participated in semi‐structured interviews online. The COREQ checklist was used to ensure accuracy and completeness of reporting. Thematic analysis revealed that abuses of power were common in the course of inpatient AN care, however life‐saving measures were regarded as defensible. The perception of clinicians' power was determined by the strength of interpersonal relationships and clinicians' clinical competence. To mitigate the potential for harmful experiences, clinicians' use of power must be exercised with close consideration for consumer perspectives, with the integration of person‐centred care and trauma‐informed care principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anorexia nervosa has a high mortality rate and is often treated in the inpatient setting, where close monitoring and medical support are available. Consistent with objective biomedical benchmarks, conventional inpatient treatment is often focussed on weight gain. Consumers report that clinicians provide care focussed on weight and physical restoration without adequate consideration of their full spectrum of needs. The aim of this study was to explore consumers' perspectives of the biomedical focus on weight gain in the inpatient care of anorexia nervosa. This study employed a qualitative approach, involving semistructured interviews, and participants were recruited from relevant social media communities. This study was ethically approved by a university ethics committee and the COREQ checklist ensured ethical reporting. Ten women participated in interviews. Participants reported that the biomedical imperative of weight gain is focussed on at the exclusion of other relevant determinants of well‐being, and the narrow focus on weight gain does not suitably prepare consumers for discharge. The conflict between clinicians' biomedical focus and consumers' broader unmet needs leads to harmful interpersonal dynamics and feelings of invalidation. The inpatient care of anorexia nervosa needs to develop beyond biomedically driven objectives and incorporate the merits of an approach that substantively integrates person‐centred care, therapeutic relationships and trauma‐informed principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are gaps in uptake of, adherence to, and persistence in the use of preexposure prophylaxis for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention among cisgender women., Methods: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial involving adolescent girls and young women in South Africa and Uganda. Participants were assigned in a 2:2:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous lenacapavir every 26 weeks, daily oral emtricitabine-tenofovir alafenamide (F/TAF), or daily oral emtricitabine-tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (F/TDF; active control); all participants also received the alternate subcutaneous or oral placebo. We assessed the efficacy of lenacapavir and F/TAF by comparing the incidence of HIV infection with the estimated background incidence in the screened population and evaluated relative efficacy as compared with F/TDF., Results: Among 5338 participants who were initially HIV-negative, 55 incident HIV infections were observed: 0 infections among 2134 participants in the lenacapavir group (0 per 100 person-years; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.00 to 0.19), 39 infections among 2136 participants in the F/TAF group (2.02 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 1.44 to 2.76), and 16 infections among 1068 participants in the F/TDF group (1.69 per 100 person-years; 95% CI, 0.96 to 2.74). Background HIV incidence in the screened population (8094 participants) was 2.41 per 100 person-years (95% CI, 1.82 to 3.19). HIV incidence with lenacapavir was significantly lower than background HIV incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.04; P<0.001) and than HIV incidence with F/TDF (incidence rate ratio, 0.00; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.10; P<0.001). HIV incidence with F/TAF did not differ significantly from background HIV incidence (incidence rate ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.28; P = 0.21), and no evidence of a meaningful difference in HIV incidence was observed between F/TAF and F/TDF (incidence rate ratio, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.14). Adherence to F/TAF and F/TDF was low. No safety concerns were found. Injection-site reactions were more common in the lenacapavir group (68.8%) than in the placebo injection group (F/TAF and F/TDF combined) (34.9%); 4 participants in the lenacapavir group (0.2%) discontinued the trial regimen owing to injection-site reactions., Conclusions: No participants receiving twice-yearly lenacapavir acquired HIV infection. HIV incidence with lenacapavir was significantly lower than background HIV incidence and HIV incidence with F/TDF. (Funded by Gilead Sciences; PURPOSE 1 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04994509.)., (Copyright © 2024 Massachusetts Medical Society.)