Do Interprofessional Educational Programmes on Eating Disorders Provide Proximal and Distal Benefits? Findings from a National Cohort Collected from 1998 to 2010
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many programs are launched aiming to raise knowledge and competence in treating eating disorders, yet few of them have been evaluated. Methods and Findings: Using a pre-post and one-year repeated measures design we evaluated a 17-month interprofessional education program (Body and Self-Esteem) comprising a national cohort of participants (n = 845) enrolled from 1998 to 2010. The purpose of the program is to raise health professionals’ 1) knowledge, 2) confidence, 3) clinical competence, and 4) to promote an understanding of how patient care can be organized in an interdisciplinary fashion. The program format consists of five to six one- to three-day seminars with plenary lectures, and four to six closed network groups. The detected changes in all four outcomes were unrelated to program-irrelevant covariates. Program satisfaction was high, and on par with initial expectations. Conclusions: Limited by the fact that a randomized controlled design was impossible to use, a reasonable conclusion is that the program may have provided both immediate and longer-term benefits.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".