Background: There is a growing need to structurally change the way chronic illness care is organized as health systems struggle to meet the demand for chronic care. mHealth technologies can alter traditional approaches to health care provision by stimulating self-management of chronically ill patients. The aim of this study was to understand the complex environment related to the introduction of mHealth solutions into primary care for chronic disease management while considering health system functioning and stakeholder views. Methods: A transdisciplinary approach was used informed by the Interactive Learning and Action (ILA) methodology. Exploratory interviews (n = 5) were held with representatives of stakeholder groups to identify and position key stakeholders. Subsequently, professionals and chronically ill patients were consulted separately to elaborate on the barriers and facilitators in integration, using semi-structured interviews (n = 17) and a focus group (n = 6). Follow-up interviews (n = 5) were conducted to discuss initial findings of the stakeholder analysis. Results: Most stakeholders, in particular primary care practitioners and patients, seem to have a supporting or mixed attitude toward integration of mHealth. On the other hand, several powerful stakeholders, including primary care information system developers and medical specialists are likely to show resistance or a lack of initiative toward mHealth integration. Main barriers to mHealth integration were a lack of interoperability with existing information systems; difficulties in financing mHealth implementation; and limited readiness in general practices to change. Potential enablers of integration included co-design of mHealth solutions and incentives for pioneers. Conclusion: Stakeholders acknowledge the benefits of integrating mHealth in primary care. However, important barriers perceived by end-users prevent them to fully adopt and use mHealth. This study shows that the complexity of introducing mHealth into primary care calls for strategies encouraging collaboration between multiple stakeholders to enhance successful implementation.

Current research and innovation (R&I) systems are not equipped to fully serve as catalysts for the urgently needed transformation of food systems. Though research on food systems transformation (first order: ‘what?’) and transformative research (second order: ‘how to’) are rapidly gaining traction in academic and policy environments, current efforts fail to explicitly recognize the systemic nature of the challenges associated with performing transformative second-order research. To recognize these manifold and interlinked challenges embedded in R&I systems, there is a need for a coupled-systems perspective. Transformations are needed in food systems as well as R&I systems (‘how to do the “how to”’). We set out to conceptualize an approach that aims to trigger double transformations by nurturing innovations at the boundaries of R&I systems and food systems that act upon systemic leverage points, so that their multisystem interactions can better support food system transformations. We exemplify this coupled-systems approach by introducing the FIT4FOOD2030 project with its 25 living labs as a promising multilevel boundary innovation at the cross-section of R&I and food systems. We illustrate how this approach paves the way for double systems transformations, and therefore for an R&I system that is fit for future-proofing food systems.

Introduction: Orthorexia nervosa (ON) is a condition that is characterized by a pathological obsession with eating foods one considers healthy and has recently been suggested as a new possible diagnosis. However, there is limited published research on health professionals’ recognition, ideas and opinions regarding the diagnosis and classification of ON. Purpose: The aim of this mixed-methods study was to gain insight into the perspectives of clinically active health professionals on ON, and into their opinions on if and how the disorder should be classified. Results: Psychologists, psychiatrists, dietitians and physiotherapists in the Netherlands (n = 160) participated by responding to a self-administered questionnaire. Most health professionals (78%) reported that they thought that ON should have its own diagnosis. This opinion was more common in physical health professionals than in mental health professionals. A majority (74%) agreed that ON fits within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) category Eating and Feeding Disorders. Interviews with 15 mental health professionals were analyzed using code frequencies and continuous comparisons. Mental health professionals reported believing that ON is prevalent in the general population and that a separate diagnosis would have both advantages and disadvantages for health professionals and patients. Interview participants described the typical ON patient as being young, female, and highly educated; characteristics that overlap with typical anorexia nervosa and obsessive compulsive disorder cases. Conclusion: The results suggest that some health professionals from a heterogenous sample in the Netherlands think ON should have a separate diagnosis in the DSM, however, the study needs to be replicated to allow for further generalization. Methodological design of this study may be utilized in future research with similar aims. The findings can serve as a foundation for investigation of individuals’ experiences of distress caused by ON, and further refinement of the diagnostic criteria.

This study aims to include the perspective of those who share content about Orthorexia Nervosa (ON) on Instagram and self-diagnose with ON (SD-ON) to trace their development of ON, gain insights into risk factors, symptoms and recovery, and explore differences with those who do not SD-ON. This research used mixed methods, with a sequential explanatory design. The quantitative component (n = 185) aimed to identify biological, psychological, interpersonal, and contextual factors that play a role in each phase of ON development. The qualitative component (n = 10) aimed to probe how and why individuals who SD-ON feel that certain experiences have shaped their development of ON. Respondents defined ON an obsession with healthy eating and clean or pure foods, with unhealthy effects on physical, mental or social wellbeing. A minority of participants did not view ON as problematic, but as a "salvation" from chronic diseases. Three phases characterizing the development of ON were identified: onset, progression and help seeking. Regarding the onset, two routes were identified, both characterized by a snowball effect of interacting factors. Regarding the progression of ON, several symptoms were identified, with obsession with healthy eating being the most frequent one. The majority of participants were trying to lose weight during ON, but their rationale was health rather than appearance. Regarding the help-seeking phase, reasons for problem realization were identified. ON was not noticed by loved ones until major health problems occurred, this being a barrier for recovery. While most believed that recovery is possible, respondents agreed that ON is a condition that will always linger in the back of the mind. This study contributes to addressing the shortage of qualitative studies investigating ON from insiders' perspective.