The hybrid space in eating disorder treatment: towards a personalized approach to integrating telehealth and in-person care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The combination of in-person and telehealth treatment for individuals with eating disorders is becoming an important clinical and research avenue. Despite this, a framework for describing such care, which is coming to be known as hybrid treatment, is lacking. We propose a definition for "the hybrid space" and a conceptual model that delineates the characteristics of hybrid interventions, using a person-centered approach. These characteristics include sociodemographic characteristics and social determinants of health; factors determining use; clinical characteristics; treatment context, participants, and services provided; treatment modality; and the proportion of in-person to telehealth care. Such a model may be helpful in steering development in this nascent field as it provides a framework that clinicians can flexibly adapt to their specific contexts and that researchers can investigate more rigorously. This model may contribute to the improvement of eating disorder treatment as hybrid interventions have the potential to exploit the best of both in-person and telehealth care while offering the possibility for personalizing and tailoring treatment to individuals. Ultimately, we hope that this framework will be a useful clinical tool which can lead to the development of guidelines for clinical practice.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it