MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3035626469 · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00568

Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Using e-Health Interventions for Patients With Eating Disorders

2020· review· en· W3035626469 on OpenAlexaff
Mojtaba Ahmadiankalati, Sabine Steins‐Loeber, Georgios Paslakis

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychiatry · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health NetworkToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)MedicineEating disordersRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Clinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In a world of technological advancements, electronic devices and services seem to be a promising way to increase patients' engagement in treatment and to help manage their symptoms. Here, we identified and analyzed the current evidence of RCTs to evaluate the effectiveness and acceptability of e-health interventions in the eating disorder (ED) field. METHODS: We screened an initial cluster of 581 papers. In the end, 12 RCTs in clinical ED cohorts were included. RESULTS: Some studies were conceived as stand-alone interventions, while others were presented as add-ons to ED-specific treatments. Studies varied in the type of EDs under investigation and in the e-health intervention applied (with vs. without therapist support vs. blended interventions; smartphone- vs. web-based). Only four studies reported explicit acceptability measures. Out of those, two reported high acceptability, one reported low acceptability, and one reported no significant difference in acceptability between groups. Four studies reported higher effectiveness of the e-health intervention compared to the control condition, e.g., reduction in maladaptive eating behaviors. Regarding control groups, three used a wait list design and nine had another kind of intervention (e.g., face-to-face CBT, or treatment as usual) as control. DISCUSSION: So far, the evidence for acceptability and effectiveness of e-health interventions in EDs is very limited. There is also a lack of studies in older patients, adolescents, men, sexual and ethnic minorities. Shame/stigma is discussed in the context of e-health interventions for EDs. It remains unclear how severity of EDs affects the effectiveness of e-health interventions, how patients can channel the knowledge they acquire from e-health interventions into their actual behaviors, and how such interventions can better fit the needs of the individual patient to increase acceptability and effectiveness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.112
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.112
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.013
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.372 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations60
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychiatrySame topicEating Disorders and BehaviorsFrench-language works237,207