Who is Providing what Type of Psychotherapy to Eating Disorder Clients? A Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the psychotherapies delivered to eating-disordered clients by community therapists. We sought to describe the education and training of psychotherapists working with eating-disordered clients, the psychotherapeutic approaches used, and the reasons for use. METHOD: Eligible Calgary clinicians were identified and asked to complete a 25-item telephone interview. RESULTS: The response rate was 74%. Educational backgrounds and fields of specialization of clinicians who completed the survey (n = 52) varied widely, as did the psychotherapies used. The most common primary therapeutic orientations of respondents were eclectic therapy (50%), cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT; 33%), and addiction-based therapy (6%). Most clinicians (87%) reported frequently using CBT techniques with eating-disordered clients. The reasons given for using primary therapeutic approaches varied by clinicians' preferred therapeutic approach and education level. CONCLUSION: Clinicians generally choose to tailor treatment to individual needs rather than base decisions on the level of empirical support. These findings have implications for dissemination of empirically supported psychotherapies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".