Brief family-based treatment (FBT) for parents/caregivers of youth with anorexia nervosa: lessons learned from a multi-method pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family-based treatment (FBT) is the recommended approach for adolescents with eating disorders (EDs), but long waitlists hinder its delivery. This study aimed to explore the feasibility and acceptability of a brief 5-week outpatient FBT psychoeducation group for parents/caregivers of adolescents with anorexia nervosa (AN). The secondary aim of this study was to examine its preliminary effectiveness of increasing parental self-efficacy and decreasing expressed emotion and accommodation of the eating disorder. Eighteen parents/caregivers of adolescents (n = 9; aged 9–18) with AN were recruited. Parental accommodation, parental self-efficacy, and expressed emotion were assessed at baseline, end of treatment (week 5), and 1-month follow-up (week 9). Qualitative interviews were collected weekly. Quantitative results were analysed using linear mixed modelling, while qualitative interviews underwent reflexive thematic analysis. Numerical evaluation of feasibility/acceptability included rates of enrollment, retention, and attendance. Parental self-efficacy significantly improved during treatment, with gains sustained at 1-month follow-up (p < .001). Parental accommodation also significantly decreased across treatment (p < .001) but significantly resurfaced at 1-month follow-up (p = .001). Qualitative results demonstrated high acceptability of the group; participants found this intervention to be helpful and better equipped them to address their child’s ED after group completion. Feasibility/acceptability metrics showed moderate enrollment (75%), high retention (94.4%), and attendance (97%). A modified 5-week FBT group for parents/caregivers of adolescents with AN shows preliminary feasibility and acceptability, informing future FBT treatment planning and service provision for ED providers.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".