Using a knowledge transfer framework to identify factors facilitating implementation of family‐based treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a qualitative study to identify factors that would facilitate the transfer of the research evidence on Family-Based Treatment (FBT) into clinical practice. METHOD: Fundamental qualitative description guided sampling, data collection, and analytic decisions for this study. Forty therapists who treat children and adolescents under the age of 18 with Anorexia Nervosa (AN) and belong to Ontario's provincial network of specialized eating disorder services completed an in-depth interview focusing on elements proposed by the Lavis knowledge transfer framework. An experienced coder conducted content analysis, with 20% of the interviews double-coded for reliability purposes. RESULTS: Participants requested training in the FBT model, including the provision of research evidence (i.e., journal articles), as well as the specific tenets of the model according to the FBT manual. The suggested audience for implementation included not only therapists themselves, but administrators, physicians, and community members. The development of best practice guidelines was also supported. Local FBT experts were suggested as credible messengers. Infrastructure relating to financial support and time away from clinical duties were reported to be essential for training. Ongoing supervision and mentorship were reported to be important elements of implementation and evaluation processes. DISCUSSION: Suggestions for moving FBT into practice were consistent with previous research, however, the importance of obtaining the evidence in the form of primary research articles and obtaining team buy-in were remarkable. Developing context-specific training programs and administrative processes for the implementation of FBT are warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".