The Contribution of Shame to Eating Disorder Treatment Outcomes in a Community Mental Health Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Shame is a powerful self-conscious emotion that is often experienced by individuals with eating disorders (EDs). While the association between EDs and shame is well-established, there is limited research investigating the contribution of pre-treatment shame to clinical outcomes. METHOD: Participants (N = 273) received outpatient cognitive-behavioral therapy for eating disorders (CBT-ED). We investigated pre-treatment shame as a predictor of dropout and as a moderator of change in ED psychopathology and clinical impairment from pre-treatment to post-treatment. We also explored the potentially moderating roles of body mass index, ED diagnostic category, and co-occurring anxiety and depression diagnoses. RESULTS: Shame improved substantially (d = 1.28) despite not being explicitly targeted in treatment. Pre-treatment shame did not predict treatment dropout. Individuals high in shame started and ended treatment with higher ED symptoms and impairment than those with low shame. The contribution of pre-treatment shame on the degree of change in symptoms/impairment depended critically on whether analyses controlled for pre-treatment symptoms/impairment. When those were controlled, high pre-treatment shame was associated with substantially less improvement in ED symptoms and impairment. There was some evidence that ED diagnosis and co-occurring depressive diagnoses may moderate the relationship between shame and treatment outcome. Changes in shame were positively associated with changes in ED symptoms and clinical impairment. DISCUSSION: A high level of shame at pre-treatment is not a contraindication for CBT-ED as good therapeutic outcomes can be achieved. However, outcomes may be enhanced among individuals high in shame by offering adjunctive interventions that explicitly target shame.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".