The relation between patient characteristics and their carers’ use of a directive versus collaborative support stance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Collaborative support provided by carers (family and friends) of individuals with eating disorders has been shown to be integral to patient motivation and clinical outcome. Little is known about factors that contribute to carers' use of collaborative, as opposed to directive, support stance. This exploratory research investigated associations between patient characteristics and carers' support beliefs and behaviors. METHOD: Eating disorder patients (n = 72) completed measures of readiness for change, eating disorder, and psychiatric symptom severity, and interpersonal functioning. Their carers (n = 72) completed measures of collaborative and directive support. RESULTS: Patient demographic variables, readiness for change, and psychiatric symptom severity were not associated with carer beliefs or behaviors. However, some patient interpersonal functioning scores were; higher Domineering/Controlling scores were associated with carers viewing directive support as more helpful, and with their use of more directive support behaviors. Higher Vindictive/Self-Centered and Intrusive/Needy scores in patients were also associated with carers viewing directive support as more helpful. DISCUSSION: This exploratory study suggests that carers may be more prone to utilizing a directive, rather than a collaborative, support stance with patients experiencing higher levels of threat, anger, and hostility, and lower levels of safety, closeness, and trust.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".