Family-based treatment for children and adolescents with eating disorders: a mixed-methods evaluation of a blended evidence-based implementation approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we evaluated a blended implementation approach with teams learning to provide family-based treatment (FBT) to adolescents with eating disorders. Four sites participated in a sequential mixed method pre-post study to evaluate the implementation of FBT in their clinical settings. The implementation approach included: (a) preparatory site visits; (b) the establishment of implementation teams; (c) a training workshop; (d) monthly clinical consultation; (e) monthly implementation consultation; and (f) fidelity assessment. Quantitative measures examining attitudes toward evidence-based practice, organizational learning environment and organizational readiness for change, as well as, individual readiness for change were delivered pre- and postimplementation. Correlational analyses were used to examine associations between baseline variables and therapist fidelity to FBT. Fundamental qualitative description guided the sampling and data collection for the qualitative interviews performed at the conclusion of the study. Seventeen individuals participated in this study (nine therapists, four medical practitioners, and four administrators). The predetermined threshold of implementation success of 80% fidelity in every FBT session was achieved by only one therapist. However, mean fidelity scores were similar to those reported in other studies. Participant attitudes, readiness, and self-efficacy were not associated with fidelity and did not change significantly from pre- to postimplementation. In qualitative interviews, all participants reported that the implementation intervention was helpful in adopting FBT. Our blended implementation approach was well received by participants. A larger trial is needed to determine which implementation factors predict FBT fidelity and impact patient outcomes.
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 | 0.029 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".