Cited by 98Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A 10‐session cognitive‐behavioral therapy (CBT‐T) for eating disorders: Outcomes from a case series of nonunderweight adult patients

Waller, Glenn, Tatham, Madeleine, Turner, Hannah, Mountford, Victoria A., Bennetts, Alison, Bramwell, Kate, Dodd, Julie, Ingram, Lauren·2018·International Journal of Eating Disorders

Abstract

Objective: Existing forms of evidence‐based cognitive behavior therapy for eating disorders (CBT‐ED) are relatively effective for nonunderweight cases. However, they are also expensive compared to CBT for other disorders. This study reports the first outcomes for a shorter, 10‐session form of CBT‐ED (CBT‐T) for such cases, designed to be less demanding of resources. Method: A case series of 106 nonunderweight eating disordered cases were considered for this effectiveness study. A protocolized 10‐session version of CBT‐ED was delivered by clinical assistants, under supervision. Measures assessed eating attitudes and behaviors, anxiety, depression, personality pathology, and the working alliance. Intention‐to‐treat analyses were used. Results: Suitability, acceptability, working alliance ratings, and retention were all positive. Outcomes by the end of therapy and at three‐month follow‐up were positive for all symptoms, with levels of change, abstinence and remission that were comparable to those from effectiveness studies of longer forms of CBT. Higher levels of pretreatment anxiety predicted retention in treatment, but no factors predicted poorer response. Early change in eating attitudes and the working alliance were the strongest predictors of a positive response. Discussion: This 10‐session form of CBT‐ED for nonunderweight eating disorders performed at a level that is comparable to versions of CBT‐ED that are twice as long, despite being delivered by nonspecialist therapists. Replication and longer‐term follow‐ups are needed to ensure retained effects. However, CBT‐T has promise as a therapy for use in a range of healthcare settings, to enhance access to treatment for such eating disorders.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eat.22837

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The low acceptance level relative to individual CBT-T and other individual therapies limits the utility of group CBT-T in clinical settings and impacts the viability of future trials.

    “The low acceptance level relative to that found in individual CBT-T and other individual therapies (Waller et al., 2018) limits the utility of group CBT-T in clinical settings, and impacts the viability of setting up future trials to determine group CBT-T's efficacy and effectiveness.”

    From Brief group cognitive‐behavioral therapy for bulimia nervosa and binge‐eating disorder: A pilot study of feasibility and acceptability. (2023) · cites this paper as Waller et al., 2018

    The Results (p. 10) report high acceptability for CBT-T: 9 of 102 patients (8.8%) declined or did not attend. This supports the individual CBT-T benchmark, but the paper does not establish acceptance levels for other individual therapies. The claims about group CBT-T’s clinical utility and future trials are the citing authors’ conclusions, not findings attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waller, G., Tatham, M., Turner, H., Mountford, V. A., Bennetts, A., Bramwell, K., Dodd, J., & Ingram, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
  • Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Waller, Glenn
Venue
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2018-02-08
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
262-269
ISSN
  • 0276-3478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-108X
OpenAlex
W2791942446
Cited by
98
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Eating Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
brief psychotherapy, treatment retention, therapeutic relationship, eating attitudes, anxiety, depression, personality pathology, treatment accessibility, clinical assistants
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review