Meaningful Associations Between Motivation for Treatment and Interpersonal Needs Within a Residential Sample of Women With Eating Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Perceived burdensomeness (PB) and thwarted belongingness (TB), two proximal risk factors for suicide, may rise during residential eating disorder (ED) treatment when patients are separated from support and face exorbitant costs of care. In this setting, fostering motivation for treatment is challenging, and low motivation for treatment may exacerbate feelings of PB and TB. Simultaneously, PB and TB could reduce motivation for treatment, though no studies have explored this relationship longitudinally. Accordingly, this study examined associations between interpersonal needs (TB, PB) and motivation for treatment across the first 6 weeks of residential ED treatment. METHODS: Participants (n = 98) completed the Interpersonal Needs Questionnaire (INQ) and rated treatment motivation weekly. Pearson bivariate correlations examined the relationship between motivation and interpersonal needs at each timepoint. Two autoregressive cross-lagged panel models (AR-CLPMs) tested reciprocal relationships between these constructs longitudinally across the first 6 weeks of treatment. RESULTS: Motivation was significantly negatively correlated with PB and TB at all timepoints. In AR-CLPM 1, Week 2 Motivation predicted Weeks 3 PB, then Week 3 PB predicted Week 4 Motivation. In AR-CLPM 2, Week 2 TB predicted Week 3 Motivation, but Motivation did not predict TB at any timepoint. DISCUSSION: This study is the first to examine longitudinal relations between interpersonal needs and treatment motivation in residential ED care. PB and TB may influence one's motivation for treatment, although motivation and PB had a stronger reciprocal relationship than motivation and TB. Interpersonal needs should be addressed early in residential treatment to mitigate negative cycling.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".