Pilot Study Comparing Multi‐family Therapy to Single Family Therapy for Adults with Anorexia Nervosa in an Intensive Eating Disorder Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multi-family therapy (MFT) has yet to be evaluated in families of adults with anorexia nervosa (AN). The study aims were: (i) assess the feasibility of MFT for AN; and, (ii) assess whether MFT is associated with improved outcomes for families compared with single-family therapy (SFT). Adult patients with AN consecutively referred to an eating disorder treatment program were assigned (non-randomly) to receive eight sessions of SFT or MFT. Assessment occurred pre-therapy, immediately post-therapy, and at 3-month follow-up. A total of 37 female patients (13 SFT, 24 MFT) and 45 family members (16 SFT, 29 MFT) completed treatment. There were significant time effects for patients' BMI, eating disorder-related psychopathology and multiple family outcome measures. There were no differences between MFT and SFT on family outcome measures at end of treatment and 3 months post treatment. MFT is a feasible intervention that can be used in adult intensive treatment for those with AN.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".