Back to search results

Virtual Narrative Medicine for Anorexia Nervosa

This study is looking at whether a program called the Narrative Medicine (NM) Workshop Series can help young people (ages 16-25) with anorexia nervosa. The goal is to see if this virtual workshop, which involves creative writing and group discussions, can improve self-expression, reflection, and resilience. Researchers want to understand if participating in this program helps individuals better express themselves, reflect on their experiences, and build emotional strength. To join, you need to be 16-25 years old, have an anorexia nervosa diagnosis, be medically stable for outpatient treatment, and be fluent in English. The study will measure how many people attend each session and how satisfied participants are with the program.

Study design
This is an interventional study with a planned enrollment of 10 participants. It is not specified if it is randomized or blinded.
What's involved
Participants will engage in a structured six-week Narrative Medicine (NM) Workshop Series.
Compensation
Not stated in the trial record.
Follow-up
Participant satisfaction and attendance will be measured immediately after the intervention at Week 6.

AI-generated from the public study record. Only the study team can confirm whether you're eligible — confirm details with them before making decisions.

NCT07579442

Incorporating Narrative Into the Treatment of Youth With Anorexia Nervosa (Virtual)

Not Yet Recruiting
NAAges 16–25InterventionalSupportive care
University of California, San Francisco
~10 participants
Updated 2026-08-11 on ClinicalTrials.gov
What's tested:Narrative Medicine (NM) Workshop Series

At a glance

Recruiting sites
0 of 1 listed site is recruiting right now
RecruitingSuspended, closed, or not yet open
What they're measuring
Number of participants in each session
Measured over Immediately post-intervention (Week 6)
+1 more outcome measured

Conditions

Anorexia Nervosa

Explore related trials

Anorexia Nervosa

Where it's being run

1 sites across 1 states
California1

Study leadership

  • Anoushka Sinha, MD, MS · PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR · University of California, San Francisco

Who to contact

Anoushka A Sinha, MD, MS
[email protected]
628-286-6116
Email the study team

Opens a ready-to-send draft in your own email app — review before sending.

Do you actually qualify for this trial?

Add a private profile and we'll compare every criterion below against your situation — and tell you which ones are met, uncertain, or excluding.

Check eligibility for this trial ~2 min · HIPAA-protected · delete anytime
Eligibility criteria

Inclusion

16-25 years old
have a DSM-5 diagnosis of AN (confirmed by the UCSF Eating Disorders Program clinical team),
currently engaged in outpatient eating disorder treatment, ensuring medical stability and capacity for a group-based intervention
English fluency to engage in reflective writing and discussions
Cognitive ability to meaningfully participate in narrative-based exercises

Exclusion

Currently medically unstable or require inpatient hospitalization
History of psychosis, schizophrenia spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, or personality disorder
Severe neurocognitive impairment that would prevent engagement with the intervention
Active suicidal ideation or non-suicidal self-injury within the past two months
Insufficient English proficiency to participate in group discussions and writing exercises

What this trial measures

  • Number of participants in each sessionImmediately post-intervention (Week 6)

    Feasibility will be measured by participant retention in intervention.

  • Satisfaction with intervention components using 5-point Likert scales and semi-structured individual interviewsImmediately post-intervention (Week 6)

    Acceptability will be measured by questionnaire including 5-point Likert scales and semi-structured individual interviews assessing content relevance, writing prompts, group discussions, and facilitation. Scale title: Intervention Satisfaction Questionnaire (ISQ) Minimum value: 1 (Strongly Disagree) Maximum value: 5 (Strongly Agree) Interpretation: Higher scores indicate greater satisfaction with the intervention (better outcome).