Comparison of Family Therapy and Family Group Psychoeducation in Adolescents with Anorexia Nervosa
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
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of 4 months of 2 family-oriented treatments, family therapy and family psychoeducation, on female adolescents with newly diagnosed restrictive eating disorders. METHOD: Twenty-five female adolescents requiring hospitalization were randomized into either family therapy or family group psychoeducation. Outcome measures included medical (body weight) and psychosocial (specific and nonspecific eating disorder psychopathology) variables at baseline and after 4 months of treatments every 2 weeks. RESULTS: A significant time effect was found in both treatment groups for the restoration of body weight (percentage of ideal body weight, P < 0.00001). The group averages ranged from 75% to 77% ideal body weight before treatment to 91% to 96% after it. A time effect was also seen on the Family Assessment Measure (P < 0.018), in that the patients of both groups acknowledged more family psychopathology at the end of treatment. No significant group differences were found on any of the self-report measures of specific and nonspecific eating disorder pathology. CONCLUSIONS: Weight restoration was achieved following the 4-month period of treatment in both the family therapy and family psychoeducation groups, but no significant change was reported in psychological functioning by either adolescents or parents. Family group psychoeducation, the less expensive form of treatment, is an equally effective method of providing family-oriented treatment to newly diagnosed, medically compromised anorexia nervosa patients and their families.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 it