Cognitive Remediation Therapy, Eh! an Exploratory Study at a Canadian Adult Eating Disorders Clinic/Thérapie De Remédiation Cognitive, Eh! Une éTude Exploratoire À Une Clinique Pour Adultes Canadiens Ayant Des Troubles De L'alimentation
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Eating disorders are serious illnesses that have psychological and physical consequences, and are difficult to treat (Klump, Bulik, Kaye, Treasure, & Tyson, 2009; Lock & Fitzpatrick, 2009). Symptoms of the illness can be both socially and occupationally debilitating, and can affect patients' overall satisfaction with life (Agras, 2001). Engagement in the recommended evidence-based treatment is a high priority within the field of adult eating disorders. Despite the frequent use of group therapy in the treatment of adult eating disorders, a longstanding issue has been patient engagement and dropout. Dropout rates are high for individual and group therapy for eating disorders, ranging between 20% and 73% for inpatient and outpatient care (Fassino, Piero, Tomba, & Abbate-Daga, 2009). A patient's decision to prematurely leave recommended treatment has been linked with feeling dissatisfied with the therapy received and the type of treatment being offered (Bados, Balaguer, & Saldana, 2007; Wallier et al., 2009). Although research is beginning to emerge on patient satisfaction in the treatment of eating disorders (Clinton, Bjorck, Sohlberg, & Norring, 2004; Krautter & Lock, 2004; Rosenvinge & Klusmeier, 2000), few studies have examined Canadian adults' satisfaction with group therapy formats or novel group-based approaches aimed at better engaging patients in the early stages of treatment of an eating disorder.Cognitive remediation therapy (CRT) represents a novel prepsychological treatment for eating disorders that can be delivered in a group format, is well liked by patients, and addresses an important gap between initial patient rapport and later engagement in evidence-based treatment (Tchanturia, Davies, & Campbell, 2007; Tchanturia, Lloyd, & Lang, 2013). CRT is well established for use with individuals with schizophrenia to help address weaknesses in the areas of attention, working memory, rigidity, and set-shifting (Harvey & Bowie, 2003; Wykes & Gaag, 2001; Wykes et al., 2007). It has also been adapted for addressing similar concerns in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, and obsessive compulsive disorder (Buhlmann, Etcoff, & Wilhelm, 2006; Park et al., 2006; Stevenson, Whitmont, Bornholt, Livesey, & Stevenson, 2002). CRT was initially examined as an individual prepsychological intervention for adult inpatients struggling with anorexia nervosa and was later adapted for use with children, adolescents, and adults in outpatient settings across eating disorder diagnoses (Abbate-Daga, Buzzichelli, Marzola, Amianto, & Fassino, 2012; Tchanturia, Campbell, Morris, & Treasure, 2005). More recently, research has found evidence that CRT may represent a feasible and accepted prepsychological outpatient treatment for eating disorders (Brockmeyer et al., 2013; Lock et al., 2013). However, further work is needed, given its preliminary evidence of improved cognitive flexibility and patient acceptability, as well as the few existing studies examining its use with adults in group therapy formats (Genders & Tchanturia, 2010; Tchanturia et al., 2013).Neuropsychological research has revealed trait-based thinking patterns in patients with eating disorders including rigid thinking, problems with set-shifting, and difficulty with zooming out for a big picture perspective (Lang, Stahl, Espie, Treasure, & Tchanturia, 2014; Lopez, Tchanturia, Stahl, & Treasure, 2008; Roberts, Tchanturia, Stahl, Southgate, & Treasure, 2007; Roberts, Tchanturia, & Treasure, 2010; Tchanturia et al., 2005; Tchanturia et al., 2011). On the behavioural level, this translates into difficulty with broader perspective taking, switching between rules for everyday tasks, shifting out of negative mood states associated with the eating disorder, and excessive detail focus on areas that would not otherwise be a focal point if the eating disorder were not present (Roberts et al. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».