Pretreatment motivational enhancement therapy for eating disorders: A pilot study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Eating disorder patients are notoriously ambivalent about treatment and often lack motivation to change. These characteristics may decrease the number of patients entering treatment and increase the number of patients dropping out of treatment prematurely. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this pilot study was to develop and evaluate a motivational enhancement therapy (MET) group program for eating disorder patients. The goal of the MET intervention was to increase participants' motivation to change, which might be expected to increase the success of future treatment of patients with eating disorders. METHOD: Nineteen individuals who were referred for specialized treatment took part in the study. The intervention was based on existing literature in the field of addictions and modified for eating disorders. RESULTS: The motivational measures suggested that the participants' motivation to change increased following the intervention. A decrease in depressive symptoms and an increase in self-esteem were also found. DISCUSSION: The results of this study suggest that MET could be valuable for the treatment of eating disorder patients and provide a rationale to conduct further research in this area.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it