Reciprocal influence of distress and group therapeutic factors in day treatment for eating disorders: A progress and process monitoring study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Eating disorders (EDs) are chronic mental illnesses with high levels of psychological, social, and health burden. Day treatment programs (DTP) are effective group-based partial hospital models that have been used to treat EDs for several decades. However, few studies have examined the factors associated with reduced distress in ED patients who participate in DTP groups. Related to this is whether change in distress is preceded by change in positive group processes, or vice versa. In this study, we examine the reciprocal relationship between growth of group therapeutic factors and change in distress in an ED sample. Participants were patients with an ED (n = 156) who took part in a 12-week DTP at a tertiary care hospital center. On a weekly basis, patients completed progress- and process-monitoring measures. We hypothesized: (a) positive changes in distress and in group therapeutic factors across weeks of DTP and (b) a bidirectional relationship between change in distress and group therapeutic factors. We found a significant growth of group therapeutic factors and decline in distress over the 12 weeks of DTP. We also found evidence for a reciprocal relationship between change in group therapeutic factors and change in distress. Group therapists working in DTPs for patients with EDs can enhance the benefits of treatment by focusing on group therapeutic processes, which in turn reduces distress, which then acts to enhance the ability of an individual to benefit from group interactions. (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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".