Analysis of the Therapeutic Course of an Eating Disorders Group

Abstract

This paper documents how eating disorders are treated through homogeneous slow-open groups, alternating small groups with larger groups. The work performed was tested using transference and countertransference analysis supported by the use of the MRG grid.

Special Section: Contemporary Challenges for Research in Group Analysis

“…Therapists were more influential in the initial and middle phases, while the group as a whole determined the communication patterns during later phases. Brunori et al (2004) described a ten year development of a therapeutic model for eating disorders. The group therapy included three small group meetings weekly for two weeks, alternating with a median group during the third week.…”

Eating disorders from parent to child: Mothers’ perceptions of transgenerational effect

“…By the middle of the group the remaining participants settled down and became comfortable with one another. It is interesting to note that the literature identified that family dynamics stand a greater chance of being elaborated in a small group which is a closer model of the nuclear family (Brunori 2004). The participants felt that a smaller group was more intimate and safer and that the "drop-outs" could not have been committed enough to their recovery to complete the course.…”

“…found that running a group for EDs seemed to facilitate the feeling of being understood without explanation, leading to the acceptance of feedback and criticism, expediting development. Brunori et al (2004) found that a small group mirrored the family group environment and having the same symptoms created a process of reciprocal identification. A group can reinforce communication by creating a space where ED sufferers can learn how to cope with otherness and can reinforce identity by the growth of the self (Segercrantz 2006).…”

“…It was thought that at the first session the participants should get to know one another before the themes were introduced. The initial function of a group that consisted of individuals with similar pathology was for them to be able to voice their problems and concerns without the risk of judgement (Brunori 2004). During the first session of the group, the benefits of homogeneity within the group became rapidly evident.…”

“…Their amazement at being able to fall pregnant and then their accompanying guilt about harming the baby, started to spill out. The group very quickly became the place where they were able to compare and share the experiences related to their illness without the accompanying feelings of being judged (Brunori 2004).…”