A randomized controlled trial of motivational interviewing + self‐help versus psychoeducation + self‐help for binge eating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Motivational Interviewing (MI) is a collaborative therapy that focuses on strengthening a person's internal motivation to change. Research suggests that MI may be helpful for treating binge eating; however, findings are limited and little is known about how MI for binge eating compares to active therapy controls. The present study aimed to build on current research by comparing MI as a prelude to self-help treatment for binge eating with psychoeducation as a prelude to self-help treatment for binge eating. METHOD: Participants with full or subthreshold DSM-IV Binge Eating Disorder or nonpurging Bulimia Nervosa were randomly assigned to receive either 60 minutes of MI followed by a self-help manual (n = 24) or 60 minutes of psychoeducation followed by a self-help manual (n = 21). Questionnaires were completed pre- and postsession, and at 1 and 4 months postsession. RESULTS: MI significantly increased readiness to change and confidence in ability to control binge eating, whereas psychoeducation did not. No group differences were found when changes in eating disorder attitudes and behaviors were examined. DISCUSSION: MI offers benefits for increasing motivation and self-efficacy. However, it may not be a uniquely effective treatment approach for reducing binge eating.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".