MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018518437 · doi:10.1089/153056203763317729

Case Report: Delivery of Family Therapy in the Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa Using Telehealth

2003· article· en· W2018518437 on OpenAlexaff
Gary S. Goldfield, Ahmed Boachie

Bibliographic record

VenueTelemedicine Journal and e-Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTelehealthAnorexia nervosaContext (archaeology)Family therapyMedicineConfidentialityEating disordersPsychiatryTelemedicineHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Family therapy plays an important role in the comprehensive treatment of adolescents with anorexia nervosa (AN). However, most comprehensive hospital-based treatment facilities for eating disorders are situated in large urban centers, thus not accessible to individuals living in underserviced rural communities. Telehealth is now being used to provide psychiatric services to individuals who do not have access to urban-based treatment centers. We report the therapeutic outcome and patient satisfaction of using telehealth to provide family therapy as an adjunctive treatment for AN to an adolescent female admitted to a large urban-based hospital treatment program. Family therapy was delivered via telehealth in a therapeutic environment within a hospital setting, and was received in a telehealth facility in the rural community. Family therapy was effectively delivered and contributed to patient recovery, as measured by objective criteria (weight gain, improved medical condition) and subjective clinical observations. In addition, all family members reported high satisfaction with telehealth without any concern regarding confidentiality. The advantages of telehealth are discussed in the context of legal and ethical issues relating to the use of this technology to deliver psychiatric care.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations56
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTelemedicine Journal and e-HealthSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207