Background Weighing is a key component in the treatment of eating disorders. Most treatment protocols advocate for open weighing, however, many clinicians choose to use blind weighing, especially during the early phase of treatment. Despite considerable debate about this issue in the literature, there is no empirical evidence supporting the superiority of one weighing approach over the other. In addition, little is known about patients’ perspectives of open and blind weighing and which weighing practice they view as more acceptable and/or beneficial for their treatment. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 41 women with a current or past diagnosis of Anorexia or Bulimia Nervosa: 26 were undergoing specialist inpatient treatment ( n = 13 being blind weighed; n = 13 being open weighed) and 15 were community members who have recovered from an eating disorder. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using framework methods. Participant demographics, clinical characteristics, weighing anxiety and weight concerns were also assessed. Results Qualitative analyses yielded five themes: (1) therapy engagement and progress; (2) Control and tolerance of weight uncertainty ; (3) treatment team relationships and autonomy; (4) life outside of treatment ; and (5) weighing practice preferences and rationale. Participants stated that blind weighing decreased anxiety and eating disorder psychopathology (e.g., weight preoccupation) and increased treatment responsivity. For many, relinquishing control over their weight facilitated body trust and was a necessary step towards recovery. Participants found that not knowing their exact weight helped challenge their overconcern with weight. Lack of support post-discharge was identified as a major difficulty of blind weighing. Overall, the majority of participants preferred blind weighing, particularly at the early, acute stage of treatment, whereas open weighing was viewed as more suitable at later stages of recovery. Quantitative analyses found current blind-weighed patients felt significantly less anxiety around being weighed and had greater tolerance of weight uncertainty than current open-weighed patients. Conclusions This study provided in-depth patient insights into open versus blind weighing practices. The next step for future research will be to supplement these insights with treatment outcomes gained from randomised controlled trials comparing the two weighing practices.

中文翻译：

---

从饮食失调患者的角度看盲法与开放式称重

背景称重是治疗饮食失调的关键组成部分。大多数治疗方案提倡公开称重，然而，许多临床医生选择使用盲称，特别是在治疗的早期阶段。尽管文献中对此问题进行了相当多的争论，但没有经验证据支持一种称量方法优于另一种称量方法。此外，对于患者对开放式和盲式称重的看法，以及他们认为哪种称重做法更容易接受和/或对他们的治疗有益，我们知之甚少。方法 对 41 名当前或过去诊断为厌食症或神经性贪食症的女性进行半结构化定性访谈：26 名正在接受专科住院治疗（n = 13 盲称；n = 13 是开放式称重的）和 15 是从饮食失调中恢复过来的社区成员。采访被录音，逐字转录并使用框架方法进行主题分析。还评估了参与者的人口统计学、临床特征、称重焦虑和体重问题。结果 定性分析产生了五个主题：（1）治疗参与和进展；(2) 重量不确定度的控制和容忍度；(3) 治疗团队的关系和自主权；(4)治疗以外的生活；(5) 称量实践偏好和理由。参与者表示，盲目称重可以减少焦虑和饮食失调的精神病理学（例如，体重成见）并增加治疗反应。对许多人来说，放弃对体重的控制有助于身体信任，是恢复的必要步骤。参与者发现，不知道自己的确切体重有助于挑战他们对体重的过度关注。出院后缺乏支持被认为是盲称的主要困难。总体而言，大多数参与者更喜欢盲目称重，特别是在治疗的早期急性阶段，而开放式称重被认为更适合恢复的后期阶段。定量分析发现，目前盲称体重的患者对称重的焦虑感显着降低，并且对体重不确定性的容忍度高于目前的开放称重患者。结论 本研究为患者提供了关于开放式和盲式称重实践的深入见解。未来研究的下一步将是通过比较两种称重实践的随机对照试验获得的治疗结果来补充这些见解。