Day treatment programme for patients with eating disorders: randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This paper reports a randomized controlled trial to compare the effects of day treatment programmes for patients with eating disorders with those of traditional outpatient treatment. BACKGROUND: Eating disorders are common, especially in adolescents, and their worldwide prevalence is increasing. Treatment interventions for patients with eating disorders have traditionally been offered on an outpatient or inpatient basis, but the recent introduction of day hospital programmes offers the possibility of greater cost-effectiveness and relapse-prevention for this population. METHODS: Volunteers from an outpatient clinic for eating disorders were randomly assigned either to a treatment group (n = 21), participating in a modified day treatment programme based on the Toronto Day Hospital Program, or to a control group (n = 22) receiving a traditional outpatient programme of interpersonal psychotherapy, cognitive behaviour therapy and pharmacotherapy. Data were collected from January to December 2002 using the Eating Disorder Examination, Eating Disorder Inventory-2, Beck Depression Inventory, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. RESULTS: Participants in the day treatment programme showed significantly greater improvements on most psychological symptoms of the Eating Disorder Inventory-2, frequency of binging and purging, body mass index, depression and self-esteem scores than the control group. They also showed significant improvement in perfectionism, but the group difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: Nurses in day treatment programmes can play various and important roles establishing a therapeutic alliance between patient and carer in the initial period of treatment. In addition, the cognitive and behavioural work that is vital to a patient's recovery, that is, dealing with food issues, weight issues and self-esteem, is most effectively provided by a nurse therapist who maintains an empathic involvement with the patient.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".