Outcomes of a Virtual Day Treatment Program for Adults With Eating Disorders—Comparison With In‐Person Day Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have indicated that virtual treatments for eating disorders (EDs) are roughly as effective as are in-person treatments; the present nonrandomized study aimed to expand on the current body of evidence by comparing outcomes from a virtual day treatment program with those of an in-person program in an adult ED sample. METHOD: Participants were 109 patients who completed at least 60% of day treatment sessions (n = 55 in-person and n = 54 virtual). Outcome measures included ED and comorbid symptoms, and motivation. RESULTS: Linear mixed models showed that global EDE-Q scores decreased during treatment (AIC = 376.396, F = 10.94, p = 0.002), irrespective of treatment modality (p = 0.186). BMI significantly increased over time (AIC = 389.029, F = 27.97, p < 0.001), with no effect of treatment modality (p = 0.779). DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest that the virtual delivery of day treatments produces comparable outcomes to those obtained using in-person formats, and that virtual formats may represent a pragmatic treatment option, especially in situations in which access to in-person care is limited.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".