Proof-of-concept testing of a brief virtual ACT workshop for emotional eating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emotional eating, or eating in response to negative emotions, is a commonly reported short-term emotion regulation strategy but has been shown to be ineffective in the long term. Most emotional eating interventions based on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) have been delivered in the context of weight loss trials, highlighting a need for ACT-based emotional eating interventions in weight-neutral contexts. AIMS: This proof-of-concept study aimed to test the acceptability and efficacy potential of a brief virtual ACT workshop for emotional eating in a small sample of adults identifying as emotional eaters. METHODS: Twenty-six adult emotional eaters completed an ACT workshop delivered in two 1.5-h sessions over two weeks. The workshop targeted awareness and acceptance of emotions and eating urges, and valued actions around eating. RESULTS: The acceptability of the workshop was demonstrated by high participant satisfaction. Significant improvements on all outcome measures were found and maintained up to 3 months follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: These proof-of-concept findings suggest that a brief virtual ACT workshop may improve emotional eating and associated ACT processes. Results from this study can inform a future randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of the workshop and the role of theoretical processes of change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04457804. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, evidence obtained from multiple time series with the intervention.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".