Extending single‐session interventions to target parents as agents of change in adolescent eating disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schleider et al. (2023, International Journal of Eating Disorders, current issue) propose multiple applications of single-session intervention (SSI) models to the eating disorders (EDs) intervention spectrum. In this commentary, we propose extending the potential of SSIs to target parents as agents of change for youth with restrictive EDs, particularly anorexia nervosa (AN). Directing SSIs to parents of children with AN can circumvent psychological barriers to care while capitalizing on the unique level of motivation in a parent to protect a child and advance their capacity to thrive. Key design components of effective SSIs map well onto the core principles of family-based treatment (FBT), which can be distilled to inform the development of SSIs for parents of youth at risk or exhibiting emerging or diagnostic AN. The participatory action research framework highlighted by Schleider et al. (2023) speaks to the importance of developing SSIs using co-design methodologies with parents. Doing so reflects the FBT principle of parent empowerment, acknowledges the research on parental self-efficacy as a mediator of FBT, and recognizes parents as both key stakeholders in the prevention and treatment of child and adolescent EDs, and as the intended recipients of the SSIs created for this population. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Schleider et al. (2023, International Journal of Eating Disorders, current issue) propose multiple applications of single-session intervention (SSI) models to eating disorders (EDs). In this commentary, we extend the potential of SSIs to target parents as agents of change for youth with restrictive EDs. Parent-focused SSIs can circumvent psychological barriers to care while capitalizing on the unique level of motivation in a parent to advance their child's capacity to thrive.
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 | 0.019 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".