Are improvements in shame and self‐compassion early in eating disorders treatment associated with better patient outcomes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compassion-focused therapy (CFT; Gilbert, 2005, 2009) is a transdiagnostic treatment approach focused on building self-compassion and reducing shame. It is based on the theory that feelings of shame contribute to the maintenance of psychopathology, whereas self-compassion contributes to the alleviation of shame and psychopathology. We sought to test this theory in a transdiagnostic sample of eating disorder patients by examining whether larger improvements in shame and self-compassion early in treatment would facilitate faster eating disorder symptom remission over 12 weeks. Participants were 97 patients with an eating disorder admitted to specialized day hospital or inpatient treatment. They completed the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire, Experiences of Shame Scale, and Self-Compassion Scale at intake, and again after weeks 3, 6, 9, and 12. Multilevel modeling revealed that patients who experienced greater decreases in their level of shame in the first 4 weeks of treatment had faster decreases in their eating disorder symptoms over 12 weeks of treatment. In addition, patients who had greater increases in their level of self-compassion early in treatment had faster decreases in their feelings of shame over 12 weeks, even when controlling for their early change in eating disorder symptoms. These results suggest that CFT theory may help to explain the maintenance of eating disorders. Clinically, findings suggest that intervening with shame early in treatment, perhaps by building patients' self-compassion, may promote better eating disorders treatment response.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".