MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973914648 · doi:10.1002/eat.20871

An off-line pilot evaluation of a web-based systemic cognitive-behavioral intervention for carers of people with anorexia nervosa

2010· article· en· W1973914648 on OpenAlexaff
Miriam Grover, Chris Williams, Ivan Eisler, Pennie Fairbairn, Catherine McCloskey, Gráinne Smith, Janet Treasure, Ulrike Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Eating Disorders · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsIntervention (counseling)Anorexia nervosaDistressAnxietyPsychologyCognitionDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyMental healthPsychiatryEating disordersPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of a novel systemic cognitive behavior therapy-based intervention for carers of people with anorexia nervosa (AN). The intervention provides information and promotes skills development in managing the illness. Carers were also offered professional support. METHOD: Twenty-seven carers were recruited. Outcomes measuring carer distress, experience of care-giving, level of expressed emotion and problem solving were measured pre- and post-intervention and at follow-up. Carers also gave feedback. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in carers' anxiety and depression, negative experiences of caregiving and expressed emotion and a significant increase in positive experiences in caregiving after the intervention. Most improvements were maintained at follow-up. The intervention was well received. DISCUSSION: The results of this pilot study indicate that the intervention is acceptable to carers and may have a positive impact on carers' mental health and experience of care-giving. Further investigation of the intervention is warranted.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.618

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.357 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations43
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Eating DisordersSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207