MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2603300021

Cognitive Remediation Therapy, Eh! an Exploratory Study at a Canadian Adult Eating Disorders Clinic/Thérapie De Remédiation Cognitive, Eh! Une éTude Exploratoire À Une Clinique Pour Adultes Canadiens Ayant Des Troubles De L'alimentation

2016· article· fr· W2603300021 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Brad A. Mac Neil, Pallavi Nadkarni, Pauline Leung, Laura Stubbs, Cathy O'Brien, Manya Singh, Sandra Leduc

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy · 2016
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEating disordersFeelingPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineClinical psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eating disorders are serious illnesses that have psychological and physical consequences, and are difficult to treat (Klump, Bulik, Kaye, Treasure, & Tyson, 2009; Lock & Fitzpatrick, 2009). Symptoms of the illness can be both socially and occupationally debilitating, and can affect patients' overall satisfaction with life (Agras, 2001). Engagement in the recommended evidence-based treatment is a high priority within the field of adult eating disorders. Despite the frequent use of group therapy in the treatment of adult eating disorders, a longstanding issue has been patient engagement and dropout. Dropout rates are high for individual and group therapy for eating disorders, ranging between 20% and 73% for inpatient and outpatient care (Fassino, Piero, Tomba, & Abbate-Daga, 2009). A patient's decision to prematurely leave recommended treatment has been linked with feeling dissatisfied with the therapy received and the type of treatment being offered (Bados, Balaguer, & Saldana, 2007; Wallier et al., 2009). Although research is beginning to emerge on patient satisfaction in the treatment of eating disorders (Clinton, Bjorck, Sohlberg, & Norring, 2004; Krautter & Lock, 2004; Rosenvinge & Klusmeier, 2000), few studies have examined Canadian adults' satisfaction with group therapy formats or novel group-based approaches aimed at better engaging patients in the early stages of treatment of an eating disorder.Cognitive remediation therapy (CRT) represents a novel prepsychological treatment for eating disorders that can be delivered in a group format, is well liked by patients, and addresses an important gap between initial patient rapport and later engagement in evidence-based treatment (Tchanturia, Davies, & Campbell, 2007; Tchanturia, Lloyd, & Lang, 2013). CRT is well established for use with individuals with schizophrenia to help address weaknesses in the areas of attention, working memory, rigidity, and set-shifting (Harvey & Bowie, 2003; Wykes & Gaag, 2001; Wykes et al., 2007). It has also been adapted for addressing similar concerns in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, learning disabilities, and obsessive compulsive disorder (Buhlmann, Etcoff, & Wilhelm, 2006; Park et al., 2006; Stevenson, Whitmont, Bornholt, Livesey, & Stevenson, 2002). CRT was initially examined as an individual prepsychological intervention for adult inpatients struggling with anorexia nervosa and was later adapted for use with children, adolescents, and adults in outpatient settings across eating disorder diagnoses (Abbate-Daga, Buzzichelli, Marzola, Amianto, & Fassino, 2012; Tchanturia, Campbell, Morris, & Treasure, 2005). More recently, research has found evidence that CRT may represent a feasible and accepted prepsychological outpatient treatment for eating disorders (Brockmeyer et al., 2013; Lock et al., 2013). However, further work is needed, given its preliminary evidence of improved cognitive flexibility and patient acceptability, as well as the few existing studies examining its use with adults in group therapy formats (Genders & Tchanturia, 2010; Tchanturia et al., 2013).Neuropsychological research has revealed trait-based thinking patterns in patients with eating disorders including rigid thinking, problems with set-shifting, and difficulty with zooming out for a big picture perspective (Lang, Stahl, Espie, Treasure, & Tchanturia, 2014; Lopez, Tchanturia, Stahl, & Treasure, 2008; Roberts, Tchanturia, Stahl, Southgate, & Treasure, 2007; Roberts, Tchanturia, & Treasure, 2010; Tchanturia et al., 2005; Tchanturia et al., 2011). On the behavioural level, this translates into difficulty with broader perspective taking, switching between rules for everyday tasks, shifting out of negative mood states associated with the eating disorder, and excessive detail focus on areas that would not otherwise be a focal point if the eating disorder were not present (Roberts et al. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Counselling and PsychotherapySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207