A shift to placing parents in charge: Does it improve weight gain in youth with anorexia?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family-based treatment (FBT) has emerged as a promising approach for medically stable youth with anorexia nervosa (AN). While there is evidence that therapists embrace the core principles of FBT, most face barriers in implementing the model with fidelity. Little research has been conducted to determine whether adhering to the core methods of placing parents in charge are sufficient in restoring weight in youth with AN. This study involved a chart review of youth under 16 years of age, treated by a Canadian tertiary care health centre-based eating disorders team (EDT). The purpose was to compare the weight gain of youth treated before and after the team was trained in FBT and shifted to empowering parents to be in charge of weight gain. As predicted, youth who participated in family sessions adhering to the 'parents in charge' approach (PIC, N=32) made greater gains in percentage of ideal body weight (%IBW) and were more likely to reach body weights within a healthy range as compared with youth (N=14) who participated in a 'non-specific therapy' (NST) involving expert driven psycho-educational family sessions. Youth whose parents were placed in charge of weight gain were also significantly less likely to be hospitalized on the psychiatry unit for weight restoration, had significantly shorter mean duration of stays on this unit, and required tube-feeding less frequently than youth who participated in NST. Collectively, the results suggest that placing parents in charge of refeeding promotes efficient weight gain, while decreasing the need for more intensive intervention.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".