Results of the first randomized controlled trial of integrated cognitive-behavioral therapy for eating disorders and posttraumatic stress disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eating disorders (EDs) and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) frequently co-occur and can share a functional relationship. The primary aim of this initial randomized controlled trial was to determine whether integrated cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for co-occurring ED-PTSD was superior to standard CBT for ED in improving PTSD symptoms. Intervention safety and desirability, as well as the relative efficacy of the treatments in improving anxiety, depression, and ED symptomatology, were also examined. METHODS: Following a course of intensive ED treatment, individuals with ED-PTSD were recruited to participate and randomized to integrated CBT for ED-PTSD or standard CBT for ED. The sample consisted of 42 individuals with a range of ED diagnoses. Outcomes were assessed at end-of-treatment, 3-, and 6-month follow-up using interview and self-report measures. RESULTS: Mixed models revealed significant interactions of time and therapy condition on clinician-rated and self-reported PTSD symptom severity favoring Integrated CBT for ED-PTSD. Both treatments were associated with statistically significant improvements in PTSD, anxiety, and depression. Improvements were maintained at 3- and 6-month follow-up. There was good safety with both interventions, and satisfaction with both treatments was high. However, there was a stronger preference for integrated treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Integrating CBTs for PTSD and ED following intensive ED treatment is safe, desirable, and efficacious for improving PTSD symptoms. Future studies with larger sample sizes are needed to determine whether Integrated CBT for ED-PTSD provides benefits over standard CBT for ED with respect to ED outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".