MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793482249 · doi:10.1177/2374373517748640

Patient Experience and Satisfaction With Acceptance and Commitment Therapy Delivered in a Complimentary Open Group Format for Adults With Eating Disorders

2018· article· en· W2793482249 on OpenAlexaff
Brad A. Mac Neil, Chloe C. Hudson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient Experience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEating disordersGroup psychotherapyPatient satisfactionMedicineOutpatient clinicAcceptance and commitment therapyPsychiatryPsychologyClinical psychologyIntervention (counseling)Nursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined patient experiences and satisfaction with acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) delivered in a novel weekly open-group therapy format immediately following psychiatric intake assessment into a hospital-based outpatient adult eating disorders program. Participants were 68 adults with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition diagnosis of an eating disorder who reported their experiences and satisfaction with the ACT group. Participants reported that they were somewhat satisfied to very satisfied with the open ACT group and that the treatment content was helpful. Specifically, participants reported that ACT group helped them to recognize their personal values and learn strategies for behavior change. Satisfaction with ACT group was associated with engagement in the broader group therapy program. Results suggest that ACT delivered in an open group format is well liked by adults in an outpatient program for eating disorders. ACT is a promising complimentary treatment for individuals with eating disorders that can be easily integrated by clinicians into outpatient care.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Patient ExperienceSame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207