Effectiveness of therapeutic conversation intervention among caregivers of people with eating disorders: quasi‐experimental design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of therapeutic conversation intervention in group and caregiver sessions on the supporting role of caregivers. BACKGROUND: Caregivers of people with eating disorders are known to suffer major difficulties and are in great need of support. Unhelpful parental support strategies can delay the recovery of an individual with an eating disorder. Skill training interventions can equip parents with skills, guidance and techniques by helping them to be a support person and making them one of the most important links in the treatment process. DESIGN: The therapeutic conversation intervention consisted of five group and caregiver sessions and three booster sessions. The Calgary Family Assessment and Calgary Family Intervention Models, the Illness Beliefs Model and the New Maudsley Method were used as theoretical frameworks. The content of the intervention consisted of work on difficult behaviours, feelings and helpful strategies. The participants (n = 58) included primary and secondary caregivers of 12- to 24-year-old patients with eating disorders. Eight caregivers dropped out of treatment. METHODS: This study had a quasi-experimental design with one pre- and two post-test measures. RESULTS: Between 90-96% of caregivers rated the therapeutic conversation intervention as supportive. Furthermore, the study revealed significant differences in caregiver emotional and cognitive support, illness beliefs, disruptive behaviour and quality of life, negative aspects of care giving demands and caregiver and patient behavioural difficulties after the intervention and/or at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic conversation intervention with caregivers in group and private sessions proved to be beneficial. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: This outcome provides information for healthcare professionals on how they can help primary caregivers in their supporting role, which can, in turn, improve services in healthcare centres and psychiatric hospitals.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".