MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554763052 · doi:10.1002/cpp.1861

Emotion‐Focused Family Therapy for Eating Disorders in Children and Adolescents

2013· review· en· W1554763052 on OpenAlexaff
Adèle Lafrance Robinson, Joanne Dolhanty, Leslie S. Greenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityLaurentian UniversityHealth Sciences North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEating disordersTestimonialFamily therapyPsychologyPsychotherapistClinical psychologyDevelopmental psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.358 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations111
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Psychology & PsychotherapySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207