Short-term impact of BREF-ED, an early, single-family psychoeducational programme for caregivers of individuals with eating disorders: A retrospective pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background There is an urgent need to improve early accessibility to psychoeducational interventions for informal caregivers of individuals with eating disorders (EDs). We adapted the BREF programme, a short, single-family, psycho-educational intervention originally developed for caregivers in severe mental disorders, to EDs (BREF-ED) and assessed at diagnosis announcement. We hypothesised that it has a good acceptability and effectiveness in reducing short-term caregivers’ self-reported levels of burden and depressive symptoms. Methods Data of caregivers who participated in the BREF-ED programme were analysed. Adherence, satisfaction, and perceived usefulness were evaluated. Changes in self-reported burden and depression symptoms were measured pre-, post-, and 3 months after the intervention using the Zarit Burden Interview (ZBI) and Center for Epidemiological Studies – Depression scale (CES-D). Results Of the 53 caregivers included in the study, 52 participants completed the BREF-ED programme. As compared to baseline, ZBI scores showed a significant reduction after the intervention (Cohen’s d = 0.61, p < 0.001), and at the 3-month assessment (Cohen’s d = 0.62, p < 0.001). The CES-D scores also significantly decreased by the end of the third session (Cohen’s d = 0.83, p < 0.001) and at the 3-month follow-up (Cohen’s d = 0.77, p < 0.001). Satisfaction scores were high, with 90.1% of participants reporting being “very satisfied” and 9.9% “satisfied.” Conclusions Preliminary findings demonstrated high adherence rates, caregiver satisfaction, and a positive impact on burden and related depressive symptoms immediately after the programme and at short-term follow-up. This time- and resource-efficient programme has the potential for easy dissemination.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".