Evidence Hub

Case Report: Motivational ambivalence and family dynamics in severe adolescent anorexia nervosa treated in a Mexican multidisciplinary setting

Meléndez JAB, Valdez-Aguilar M, Bustinzar ARP, González Garcia C, Barriguete Chávez-Peón P, Portugal AV, de Oca Moncada CEM, Jiménez Miranda N

Frontiers in psychology, 2026

Abstract

This case report describes the clinical course of two adolescent females (ages 12 and 14) with severe restrictive-type anorexia nervosa (AN) and comorbid anxiety and depressive symptoms. Both presented with extreme malnutrition (BMI-for-age <1st percentile), amenorrhea, distorted body image, and marked ambivalence toward weight restoration. Their families, characterized as structured, were engaged with the treatment. Care involved short-term hospitalization followed by intensive outpatient multidisciplinary treatment integrating cognitive-behavioral and dialectical behavior therapy strategies, nutritional rehabilitation, psychopharmacology, and structured caregiver involvement, alongside a psychodynamic-systemic family intervention informed by initial assessment. This model provided a framework to identify relational and emotional processes underlying motivational ambivalence. Over 6 months, both patients achieved weight restoration (approximately 50th-60th percentile BMI-for-age), with reduced eating disorder (ED) symptoms and improved emotional awareness, accompanied by changes in family functioning. However, residual anxiety, perfectionism, fluctuating insight, family conflict, and treatment fatigue persisted. One patient discontinued treatment prematurely despite clinical stabilization, with family and couple conflict. These cases highlight the complicated interaction between symptom remission, motivational ambivalence, and family dynamics in adolescent AN, emphasizing…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case report, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free