Self-Help for Bulimia Nervosa: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors examined the effectiveness of unguided self-help as a first step in the treatment of bulimia nervosa. METHOD: A total of 85 women with bulimia nervosa who were on a waiting list for treatment at a hospital-based clinic participated. The patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two self-help manuals or to a waiting list control condition for 8 weeks. One of the self-help manuals addressed the specific symptoms of bulimia nervosa (cognitive behavior self-help), while the other focused on self-assertion skills (nonspecific self-help). RESULTS: Twenty patients (23.5%) dropped out of the study. The data were analyzed with intention-to-treat analysis. Although the group-by-time interaction for binge eating and purging was not statistically significant, simple effects showed that there was a significant reduction in symptom frequency in both self-help conditions at posttreatment but not in the waiting list condition. There were no statistically significant changes in levels of dietary restraint, eating concerns, concerns about shape and weight, or general psychopathology. A greater proportion of patients in the cognitive behavior self-help (53.6%) and nonspecific self-help (50.0%) conditions reported at least a 50% reduction in binge eating or purging at posttreatment, compared with the waiting list condition (31.0%). A lower baseline knowledge about eating disorders, more problems with intimacy, and higher compulsivity scores predicted a better response. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that a subgroup of patients with bulimia nervosa may benefit from unguided self-help as a first step in their treatment. Cognitive behavior self-help and nonspecific self-help had equivalent effects.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".