Effectiveness of a group psychoeducation program for the treatment of subclinical disordered eating in women with type 1 diabetes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coexistence of type 1 diabetes mellitus and disordered eating is associated with poor metabolic control, poor adherence to diabetes treatment regimens, and increased risk of long-term diabetic complications. This study assessed whether a six-session group psychoeducation program would improve metabolic control, diabetes treatment adherence, eating disorder symptomatology, and general psychopathology in women with coexisting type 1 diabetes and subclinical disordered eating. Fourteen women were assigned to the treatment group (n=8) or wait-list control group (n=6). Measurements were taken at baseline, post-intervention, and one month post-intervention. There were no significant differences in how the treatment group and wait-list control group changed over time. Between the first and second measurements, both groups demonstrated significant improvements in depression and general emotional distress. The results suggest that a six-session group psychoeducation program is no more effective than a wait-list control group for treating subclinical disordered eating in women with type 1 diabetes. Further research is required to determine the most effective treatment for this population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".