The costs and benefits of intensive day treatment programs and outpatient treatments for eating disorders: An idea worth researching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outpatient care (e.g., individual, group, or self-help therapies) and day treatment programs (DTPs) are common and effective treatments for adults with eating disorders. Compared to outpatient care, DTPs have additional expenses and could have unintended iatrogenic effects (e.g., may create an overly protective environment that undermines self-efficacy). However, these potential downsides may be offset if DTPs are shown to have advantages over outpatient care. To explore this question, our team conducted a scoping review that aimed to synthesize the existing body of adult eating disorder literature (a) comparing outcomes for DTPs to outpatient care, and (b) examining the use of DTPs as a higher level of care in a stepped care model. Only four studies met the predefined search criteria. The limited results suggest that the treatments have similar effects and that outpatient care is more cost-effective. Furthermore, no studies explored the use of DTPs as a higher level of care in a stepped care model (despite international guidelines recommending this approach). Given the clear dearth of literature on this clinically relevant topic, we have provided specific avenues for further research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".