Parental Involvement and Child and Adolescent Eating Disorders: Perspectives from Residents in Psychiatry, Pediatrics, and Family Medicine.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Best practice guidelines encourage the involvement of parents in the assessment and treatment of child/adolescent eating disorders (ED). This study investigated medical residents' perspectives regarding parental involvement as well as their expectations for future practice in the assessment and treatment of ED. METHOD: Five hundred and eighty-four medical residents from 17 Canadian residency programs specializing in family medicine, pediatrics, and psychiatry completed a web-based survey. Questions pertained to assessment and treatment practices for child/adolescent ED. Analyses included ANOVAs, paired t-tests, and, for residents who endorsed family involvement (N = 444), qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Overall, residents reported that they "mostly" agreed with the involvement of family in the assessment and treatment of ED. Residents' endorsement of family involvement in both domains increased according to the extent of ED training received. Four major themes emerged from the content analysis of family involvement and included recommendations in line with evidence-based models and unspecified, passive involvement in the assessment and recovery process. CONCLUSIONS: Many residents endorse family involvement in both assessment and treatment; however, understanding of the nature of such involvement is often vague. Training in evidence-based protocols is necessary for residents planning to engage in multi-disciplinary assessment, referral, and/or treatment in their future practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".