Educational and support intervention to help families assist in the recovery of relatives with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary • A group of family members of people with an eating disorder (parents, partners or siblings over the age of 18 years) attended the intervention which included four sessions on a weekly basis. • An educational and support intervention was provided with tasks in and between sessions. • Positive beliefs were discussed in tackling problems. • The main findings revealed a significant improvement in understanding of the carers, eating behaviours, concern with weight and food and denial of the problem concerning the illness symptoms. Abstract The aim of this study was to develop and test an educational and support nursing intervention in Iceland to help families assist with the recovery of relatives with eating disorders. Studies indicate that if families receive adequate help in the recovery process of a relative with an eating disorder, the prognosis is better. The study is a pre-post design. The intervention was based on the Calgary Family Intervention Model. An educational and support intervention, which lasted for 3 weeks, was provided for 21 family members of individuals with eating disorders. The patients had been diagnosed with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa or an eating disorder not otherwise specified. Participants were divided into three groups. The main findings revealed a significant improvement according to the scales used for measuring understanding in the level of expressed emotion questionnaire and for measuring eating behaviour, concern with weight and food, and denial of the problem in the anorectic behaviour observation scale. The participants' responses to the research questions about their satisfaction with the educational and support intervention were positive. The study indicates that an educational and support intervention can prove beneficial for families and patients with eating disorders.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".