Review of Mindfulness-Related Interventions to Modify Eating Behaviors in Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are few well-established treatments for adolescent eating disorders, and for those that do exist, remission rates are reported to be between 30 and 40%. There is a need for the development and implementation of novel treatment approaches. Mindfulness approaches have shown improvements in eating disorder-related psychopathology in adults and have been suggested for adolescents. The present review identifies and summarizes studies that have used mindfulness approaches to modify eating behaviors and to treat eating disorders in adolescents. Focused searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, and PsycINFO, and identified articles were checked for relevance. A small number of studies (n = 15) were designated as appropriate for inclusion in the review. These studies were divided into those that focused on the promotion of healthy eating/the prevention of disordered eating (n = 5), those that concentrated on targeted prevention among high risk adolescents (n = 5), and those that focused on clinical eating disordered adolescents (n = 5). Thirteen of the 15 studies reviewed reported at least one positive association between mindfulness treatment techniques and reduced weight/shape concerns, dietary restraint, decreased body mass index (BMI), eating in the absence of hunger (EAH), binge eating, increased willingness to eat novel healthy foods, and reduced eating disorder psychopathology. In summary, incorporating mindfulness to modify eating behaviors in adolescent non-clinical and clinical samples is still in the early stages, with a lack of data showing clear evidence of acceptability and efficacy. Further studies and preferably controlled conditions are warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".