Therapist adherence to family‐based treatment for adolescents with anorexia nervosa: A multi‐site exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study is the first to examine family-based treatment (FBT) adherence and association to treatment outcome in the context of a large-scale, multi-centre study for the treatment of adolescents with anorexia nervosa. METHOD: One hundred and ninety recorded FBT sessions from 68 adolescents with anorexia nervosa and their families were recruited across multiple sites (N = 6). Each site provided 1-4 tapes per family over four treatment time points, and each was independently rated for therapist adherence. RESULTS: There were differences in adherence scores within and between sites. ANOVA produced a main effect for site, F(5, 46) = 8.6, p < .001, and phase, F(3, 42) = 12.7, p < .001, with adherence decreasing in later phases. Adherence was not associated to end of treatment percent ideal body weight after controlling for baseline percent ideal body weight (r = .088, p = .48). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that FBT can be delivered with adherence in phase one of treatment. Adherence was not associated with treatment outcome as determined using percent ideal body weight.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".