Readiness to Change Dietary Restriction Predicts Outcomes in the Eating Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the relationship between readiness and motivation to change eating disorder symptoms and clinical outcomes during and following intensive residential eating disorder treatment. Sixty-four women completed the Readiness and Motivation Interview (RMI) at baseline, and a subset of participants were reassessed at post-treatment (n=45) and at 6 month follow-up (n=38). The RMI provides readiness scores for each of four symptom domains: restriction, cognitive, bingeing, and compensatory strategies. RMI scores were used to predict decision to enroll in treatment, dropout, symptom change following treatment, and maintenance of symptom change at six-month follow-up. The extent to which participants did not want to make changes to their dietary restriction at baseline (restriction precontemplation) was the most consistent predictor of short-term clinical outcome. The extent to which participants reported changing their restriction for themselves versus others (restriction internality) predicted outcome at 6-month follow-up. These preliminary findings suggest that assessing client readiness and motivation to change dietary restriction is most useful in predicting short and long-term clinical 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".