Cited by 33Eating Disorders and BehaviorsMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Mindfulness and acceptance‐based behavioral treatment for bulimia‐spectrum disorders: A pilot feasibility randomized trial

Open access
Juarascio, Adrienne S., Parker, Megan N., Hunt, Rowan, Murray, Helen Burton, Presseller, Emily K., Manasse, Stephanie M.·2021·International Journal of Eating Disorders

Abstract

Objective: Although existing research supports the efficacy of mindfulness‐ and acceptance‐based treatments (MABTs) for eating disorders (EDs), few studies have directly compared outcomes from MABTs to standard CBT. Method: Participants (N = 44), treatment‐seeking adults with bulimia‐spectrum EDs, were screened for eligibility, consented, and randomized to receive 20 sessions of outpatient, individual CBT or MABT treatment. Treatment outcomes (binge eating and compensatory behavior episodes, global ED severity, depressive symptoms, quality of life, emotional awareness/clarity, distress tolerance, values‐based decision‐making, and emotion modulation) were measured at pre‐treatment, post‐treatment, and 6‐month follow up. Data on feasibility and acceptability are also presented. Results: Treatment and assessment retention rates were comparable between MABT and CBT (p range = .51–.73) and between‐group differences on acceptability measures were very small (d range = 0.03–0.19). Both conditions produced notable and generally comparable changes in most treatment outcomes at post‐treatment (within group d range = 0.06–1.77). Discussion: The MABT and CBT conditions demonstrated comparable degrees of feasibility, acceptability, and symptom improvement, suggesting that MABTs warrant further evaluation as ED treatments.

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.23512

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

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
Juarascio, A. S., Parker, M. N., Hunt, R., Murray, H. B., Presseller, E. K., & Manasse, S. M.
Affiliations
  • Drexel University (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Louisville (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Juarascio, Adrienne S.
Venue
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-04-14
Volume
54
Issue
7
Pages
1270-1277
ISSN
  • 0276-3478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-108X
OpenAlex
W3155670602
Cited by
33
References
32
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 1
FWCI
4.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Eating Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (K23MH105680)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
bulimia nervosa, eating disorders, cognitive behavioral therapy, binge eating, compensatory behavior, treatment feasibility, treatment acceptability, depressive symptoms, emotional awareness, distress tolerance, values-based decision making, emotion regulation, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adult, Feasibility Studies, Humans, Quality of Life, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Bulimia Nervosa, Mindfulness

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