Emotion‐Focused Family Therapy for Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Family-based therapy (FBT) is regarded as best practice for the treatment of eating disorders in children and adolescents. In FBT, parents play a vital role in bringing their child or adolescent to health; however, a significant minority of families do not respond to this treatment. This paper introduces a new model whereby FBT is enhanced by integrating emotion-focused therapy (EFT) principles and techniques with the aims of helping parents to support their child's refeeding and interruption of symptoms. Parents are also supported to become their child's 'emotion coach'; and to process any emotional 'blocks' that may interfere with their ability to take charge of recovery. A parent testimonial is presented to illustrate the integration of the theory and techniques of EFT in the FBT model. EFFT (Emotion-Focused Family Therapy) is a promising model of therapy for those families who require a more intense treatment to bring about recovery of an eating disorder. KEY PRACTITIONER MESSAGE: More intense therapeutic models exist for treatment-resistant eating disorders in children and adolescents. Emotion is a powerful healing tool in families struggling with an eating disorder. Working with parent's emotions and emotional reactions to their child's struggles has the potential to improve child outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".