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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".