A naturalistic comparison of two inpatient treatment protocols for adults with anorexia nervosa: Does reducing duration of treatment and external controls compromise outcome?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Although hospitalization is sometimes necessary when treating individuals with anorexia nervosa, the available literature provides limited guidance to inform decisions surrounding optimal components or duration of inpatient treatments. We report observational data comparing outcomes of two inpatient treatments. The first was longer and more strictly structured around a Contingency Management Protocol (CMP) emphasizing external incentives for achieving weight-restoration goals; the second was a shorter Autonomy Support Protocol (ASP) that progressively increased patient autonomy around meal management without external incentives. METHOD: We compared data from 41 patients who participated in the ASP to a historical sample of 41 patients treated using the CMP. At admission, discharge, and post-treatment follow-up, participants completed the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire and the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale-32, and we measured height and weight to compute body mass index. RESULTS: Multilevel modeling analyses that controlled for time in treatment and time in follow-up indicated the two protocols yielded equivalent in-treatment gains and post-treatment loss of gains. DISCUSSION: Our results indicate that shorter inpatient stays emphasizing autonomous control over eating behavior may yield outcomes that are equivalent to those of lengthier, more stringent, and more costly approaches implicating external incentives and controls.
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 | 0.009 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".