Momentary skills use predicts decreased binge eating and purging early in day treatment: An ecological momentary assessment study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Emerging research indicates that skills acquisition may be important to behavior change in cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) for eating disorders. This study investigated whether skills use assessed in real time during the initial 4 weeks of CBT-based day treatment was associated with momentary eating disorder behavior change and rapid response to treatment. METHODS: Participants with DSM-5 bulimia nervosa or purging disorder (N = 58) completed ecological momentary assessments (EMA) several times daily for the first 28 days of treatment. EMA assessed skills use, the occurrence of binge eating and/or purging, and state negative affect. Rapid response was defined as abstinence from binge eating and/or purging in the first 4 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Greater real-time skills use overall, and use of "planning ahead," "distraction," "social support," and "mechanical eating" skills in particular, were associated with a lower likelihood of engaging in binge eating or purging during the same period. After controlling for baseline group differences in overall difficulties with emotion regulation, rapid and non-rapid responders did not differ in overall skills use, or skills use at times of higher negative affect, during the EMA period. DISCUSSION: Momentary use of skills appears to play an important role in preventing binge eating and purging, and certain skills appear to be particularly helpful. These findings contribute to the literature elucidating the processes by which CBT treatments for eating disorders work by providing empirical evidence that skills use helps to prevent binge eating and purging behaviors. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Individuals with eating disorders learn new skills during treatment to help them improve their symptoms. This study shows that for people with eating disorders, using skills helps prevent eating disorder behaviors in the moment. Certain skills may be particularly helpful, including planning ahead, distracting activities, support from others, and focusing on eating meals and snacks regardless of how one is feeling. These findings help us better understand how treatments work.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".