MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3118423899 · doi:10.1186/s40337-020-00358-5

The feasibility of emotion-focused therapy for binge-eating disorder: a pilot randomised wait-list control trial

2021· article· en· W3118423899 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Eating Disorders · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEating Disorders and Behaviors
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExpectancy theoryBinge eatingBinge-eating disorderPsychologyPsychopathologyClinical psychologyCredibilityRepeated measures designIntervention (counseling)Randomized controlled trialAcceptance and commitment therapyEating disordersPsychiatryMedicineBulimia nervosa

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Research into psychotherapy for binge-eating disorder (BED) has focused mainly on cognitive behavioural therapies, but efficacy, failure to abstain, and dropout rates continue to be problematic. The experience of negative emotions is among the most accurate predictors for the occurrence of binge eating episodes in BED, suggesting benefits to exploring psychological treatments with a more specific focus on the role of emotion. The present study aimed to explore the feasibility of individual emotion-focused therapy (EFT) as a treatment for BED by examining the outcomes of a pilot randomised wait-list controlled trial. METHODS: Twenty-one participants were assessed using a variety of feasibility measures relating to recruitment, credibility and expectancy, therapy retention, objective binge episodes and days, and binge eating psychopathology outcomes. The treatment consisted of 12 weekly one-hour sessions of EFT for maladaptive emotions over 3 months. A mixed model approach was utilised with one between effect (group) using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) to test the hypothesis that participants immediately receiving the EFT treatment would demonstrate a greater degree of improvement on outcomes relating to objective binge episodes and days, and binge eating psychopathology, compared to participants on the EFT wait-list; and one within effect (time) using a repeated-measures ANOVA to test the hypothesis that participation in the EFT intervention would result in significant improvements in outcome measures from pre to post-therapy and then maintained at follow-up. RESULTS: Recruitment, credibility and expectancy, therapy retention outcomes indicated EFT is a feasible treatment for BED. Further, participants receiving EFT demonstrated a greater degree of improvement in objective binge episodes and days, and binge eating psychopathology compared to EFT wait-list control group participants. When participants in the EFT wait-list control group then received treatment and outcomes data were combined with participants who initially received the treatment, EFT demonstrated significant improvement in objective binge episodes and days, and binge eating psychopathology for the entire sample. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide further preliminary evidence for the feasibility of individual EFT for BED and support more extensive randomised control trials to assess efficacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was retrospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ( ACTRN12620000563965 ) on 14 May 2020.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.299 · 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