Comparison of Family Therapy and Family Group Psychoeducation in Adolescents with Anorexia Nervosa
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".