Change in attachment dimensions in women with binge-eating disorder following group psychodynamic interpersonal psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the role of attachment dimensions, including coherence of mind and reflective functioning, in developing and maintaining binge-eating disorder (BED) and in determining group psychotherapy outcomes for women with BED. We hypothesize that higher pre-treatment attachment dimension scores will predict better treatment outcomes for women with BED and will increase at follow-up. METHOD: Women with BED attended 16 sessions of group therapy and completed the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) at pre-treatment. Participants completed outcome measures (i.e., binge-eating frequency and symptoms of depression) at pre-, post-, six months, and 12 months post-treatment. Treatment completers completed the AAI at six months post-treatment. RESULTS: Treatment outcomes improved significantly from pre- to 12 months post-treatment. Greater Reflective Functioning scores at pre-treatment were related to greater decreases in binge eating across the four time points, whereas Coherence of Mind scores were not. For treatment completers, there were significant increases in Reflective Functioning at six months post-treatment, and about a third of treatment completers experienced clinically significant increases in both attachment dimensions at six months post-treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Greater reflective functioning at the outset is important for improvements in binge eating in the longer term and group psychotherapy can facilitate change in reflective functioning.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".