Change in attachment insecurity is related to improved outcomes 1-year post group therapy in women with binge eating disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An interpersonal model of Binge Eating Disorder (BED) posits that difficulties with social functioning precipitate negative affect, which in turn causes binge eating as a means of coping. Thus, long-term decreases in attachment insecurity may be important for women with BED. No research has assessed if long-term change in attachment insecurity is associated with sustained change in other outcomes. In the current study, we hypothesized that changes in attachment anxiety and avoidance will decrease at posttreatment and will be maintained up to 12 months after Group Psychodynamic Interpersonal Psychotherapy (GPIP). We further hypothesized that long-term stability of these changes in attachment insecurity will be related to other long-term outcomes. Women with BED (N = 102) attended 16 sessions of GPIP. Measures were completed pretreatment, posttreatment, at 6 and 12 months follow-up. Attachment anxiety, attachment avoidance, and the other outcome variables decreased significantly at 12 months posttreatment. Reductions in attachment anxiety and avoidance were significantly related to decreases in interpersonal problems up to 12 months posttreatment, and reduction in attachment anxiety was significantly related to decreases in depressive symptoms 12 months posttreatment. Further, the significant relationship between reduced attachment avoidance and decreased interpersonal problems strengthened over the long term. This is the first study to show an association between change in attachment insecurity and change in other outcomes in the long term, and to show an adaptive spiral in which greater reduction in attachment avoidance is increasingly associated with ongoing improvement of interpersonal problems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".