Comparing a novel, virtual, group-based guided self-help to unguided self-help for the treatment of binge-eating disorder in adults: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binge Focused Therapy (BFT) is a 3-session, group-based, guided self-help treatment for binge-eating disorder (BED). In this parallel-group randomized controlled trial (RCT), adults with BED were randomized to virtual BFT or a traditional unguided self-help approach (Overcoming Binge Eating; Fairburn, 2013). Self-report measures were collected at baseline, week 6, week 10 (posttreatment), 6- and 12-month follow-up. We hypothesized BFT (n = 82) would lead to better BED outcomes and lower dropout than unguided self-help (n = 82). Our intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated a significant effect of treatment group on BED symptomatology (primary outcome; β= − 5.04, p < .001, 95% CI [ − 7.57, − 2.52]), binge frequency (β= − 3.24, p = .001, 95% CI [ − 5.22, − 1.26]), general ED symptomatology (β= − 0.91, p < .001, 95% CI [ − 1.17, − 0.65]), clinical impairment (β= − 6.27, p < .001, 95% CI [ − 8.78, − 3.77]), confidence to change binge eating (β = 1.22, p < .001, 95% CI [0.56, 1.89]), BED remission (OR = 4.98, p = .003, 95% CI [1.72, 14.40]), and treatment attrition (β = 0.456, p < .001), with the BFT group reporting greater improvements and lower dropout. We did not find evidence of a significant effect of group on binge-eating abstinence (OR = 2.01, p = .103, 95% CI [0.87, 4.64]). BFT may be an effective BED treatment that could overcome common barriers to treatment implementation and accessibility.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".