Feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial comparing family‐based treatment via videoconferencing and online guided self‐help family‐based treatment for adolescent anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This report describes the feasibility, acceptability, and outcomes from a pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing an online guided self-help program version of family-based treatment (GSH-FBT) for parents with a child with DSM-5 anorexia nervosa (AN) to FBT delivered via videoconferencing (FBT-V). METHOD: Between August 2019 and October 2020, 40 adolescents ages 12-18 years with DSM-5 AN and their families were recruited at two sites and randomized to either twelve 20-min guided sessions of GSH-FBT for parents or fifteen 60-min sessions of FBT-V for the entire family. Recruitment, retention, and acceptability of treatment were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes were changes in weight, eating disorder examination (EDE), parental self-efficacy, weight remission, full remission, and outcome efficiency (therapist time needed to achieve treatment outcomes). RESULTS: Descriptive data are reported. Recruitment and retention rates are similar to RCTs using in-person treatments. Both treatments received similar acceptability rates. Medium and large effect sizes (ES) related to improvements in weight, EDE, parental self-efficacy, and remission were achieved in both treatments and were maintained at a 3-month follow-up. Clinical outcomes between groups were associated with a small ES. Differences in efficiency (outcome/therapist time) were associated with a large ES difference favoring GSH-FBT. DISCUSSION: These data support the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered RCT comparing online GSH-FBT to FBT-V to determine which approach is more efficient in achieving improvements in clinical outcomes in adolescents with AN.
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 | 0.029 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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.
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".