A systematic review of the effectiveness of behavioural treatments for pica in youths
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pica is the persistent consumption of non-nutritive, nonfood substances and is associated with adverse health complications. However, there is limited research on interventions for pica in youth. The objective of this study is to systematically review the empirical evidence for the effectiveness of behavioural interventions for pica in children and adolescents and to generate treatment recommendations. A systematic search yielded 823 articles extracted from five databases: CINALH, Family and Society Studies Worldwide, Medline, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two reviewers completed initial sorting based on article titles and abstracts. Five reviewers completed sorting based on full article review. Thirty articles were included and double coded for demographic information, co-morbid conditions, and intervention characteristics. These studies were case studies involving behavioural treatments for pica. Seventeen behavioural interventions were categorized into four treatment approaches: reinforcement-based, response interruption, "other" interventions, and punishment-based procedures. Interventions that resulted in near-zero rates of pica were deemed effective. Findings showed support for contingent reinforcement, discrimination training as part of a combination treatment, physical restraint, time out, and contingent aversive stimulus. No evidence supported the effectiveness of response interruption procedures, including response blocking and visual facial screen. Other coded procedures did not appear effective. We recommend that the least restrictive procedures are implemented first, including a combination treatment with contingent reinforcement and discrimination training. As needed, more restrictive procedures can be added to the treatment package. This review will facilitate future empirical work and assist clinicians with treatment options for pica in youth. High-quality trials are needed.
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 | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".