Autonomy support and autonomous motivation in the outpatient treatment of adults with an eating disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Across diverse clinical problems, therapists' autonomy support has been found to increase patients' autonomous motivation for change. Being self-motivated has, in turn, been linked to superior treatment response. In people undergoing outpatient eating disorder (ED) treatment, we examined associations among ratings of autonomy support received from therapists and other carers, self-reported engagement in therapy, and clinical outcomes. METHOD: Ninety-seven women with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, or a related ED provided measures of motivational status and clinical symptoms at the beginning and end of time-limited (12-16 weeks) segments of specialized treatment. At mid-treatment, patients also rated the extent to which they perceived their individual therapists, group therapists, group-therapy peers, family members, friends, and romantic partners as being autonomy supportive. RESULTS: Overall, multiple regression analyses indicated autonomy support to moderate (rather than mediate) the link between initial autonomous motivation and later change in autonomous motivation-with results indicating that, independently of ED diagnosis or treatment intensity, greater perceived autonomy support (from therapists and nontherapists alike) coincided with larger increases in autonomous motivation over the course of therapy. In turn, higher autonomous motivation at end-of-therapy coincided with larger reductions in eating symptoms. DISCUSSION: Findings suggest that the experience of autonomy support (from therapists and nontherapists) is associated with increasing motivation in people undergoing ED treatment, and that becoming self-motivated is linked to better outcomes. Such results indicate that support from therapists, relatives, and peers can favorably influence personal engagement in individuals undergoing ED treatment.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".