The efficacy of a brief motivational intervention for individuals with eating disorders: A randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Individuals with eating disorders are often ambivalent about recovery, and previous research has shown that readiness for change predicts enrollment in intensive treatment, symptom change, dropout, and relapse. Given the demonstrated importance of readiness for change, researchers and clinicians have turned to investigating interventions designed to enhance motivation. The purpose of this research was to determine the efficacy of Readiness and Motivation Therapy (RMT), a five-session individual preparatory intervention for individuals with eating disorders. METHOD: Participants completed the Readiness and Motivation Interview and measures of eating disorder symptomatology, self-esteem, and psychiatric symptoms at intake. One hundred eighty-one participants were randomly assigned to the treatment (RMT) or wait-list control condition and were reassessed at 6-week and 3-month follow-up; 113 completed assessments at all three time points and primary analyses were based on these individuals. RESULTS: Surprisingly, improvements in readiness for change, depression, drive for thinness, and bulimia symptoms occurred over time in both RMT and control conditions. However, at post and at follow-up, individuals who received RMT were less likely to have high ambivalence than were those from the control condition. DISCUSSION: RMT may be of benefit to highly reluctant, clinically challenging patients and help them make better use of future, action-oriented treatment.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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.
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".