A feasibility study comparing a web‐based intervention to a workshop intervention for caregivers of adults with eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess for the validity of a future trial, the current feasibility study aimed to compare the feasibility and efficacy of a web- and workshop-based education intervention for caregivers of adults with eating disorders. METHODS: Psychoeducation was provided to caregivers, who were randomly assigned to a web or workshop condition. Independent samples t tests were conducted to analyse the between-group effect sizes for intervention condition with regard to change over time. A random selection of participants from each intervention provided qualitative feedback about their experiences. RESULTS: Overall, participants reported positive experiences in both education interventions. From baseline to the end of intervention, small between-group effect sizes were observed for changes in caregiver accommodation, problem-solving abilities, the quality of psychological health, and the quality of social relationships, favouring the web-based intervention, and changes in expressed emotion in the family context, caregiver burden, perceived stress, and the quality of the environment, supporting the workshop intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There was a difference in initial feasibility of the web intervention. A future large-scale trial of these interventions is supported by the results of this feasibility study.
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 | 0.013 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".