Rapid response to intensive treatment for bulimia nervosa and purging disorder: A randomized controlled trial of a CBT intervention to facilitate early behavior change.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Rapid response to cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for eating disorders (i.e., rapid and substantial change to key eating disorder behaviors in the initial weeks of treatment) robustly predicts good outcome at end-of-treatment and in follow up. The objective of this study was to determine whether rapid response to day hospital (DH) eating disorder treatment could be facilitated using a brief adjunctive CBT intervention focused on early change. METHOD: 44 women (average age 27.3 [8.4]; 75% White, 6.3% Black, 6.9% Asian) were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 4-session adjunctive interventions: CBT focused on early change, or motivational interviewing (MI). DH was administered as usual. Outcomes included binge/purge frequency, Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire and Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale. Intent-to-treat analyses were used. RESULTS: The CBT group had a higher rate of rapid response (95.7%) compared to MI (71.4%; p = .04, V = .33). Those who received CBT also had fewer binge/purge episodes (p = .02) in the first 4 weeks of DH. By end-of-DH, CBT participants made greater improvements on overvaluation of weight and shape (p = .008), and emotion regulation (ps < .008). Across conditions, there were no significant baseline differences between rapid and nonrapid responders (ps > .05). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that rapid response can be clinically facilitated using a CBT intervention that explicitly encourages early change. This provides the foundation for future research investigating whether enhancing rates of rapid response using such an intervention results in improved longer term outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".