Cited by 44Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

A pragmatic effectiveness study of 10‐session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT‐T) for eating disorders: Targeting barriers to treatment provision

Pellizzer, Mia L., Waller, Glenn, Wade, Tracey D.·2019·European Eating Disorders Review

Abstract

Objective: Ten‐session cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT‐T) for transdiagnostic eating disorders targets several barriers to treatment, including cost, therapist expertise, and lengthy wait lists. Method: We used a case series design to investigate the effectiveness of CBT‐T delivered by trainee psychologists in a postgraduate training clinic. Participants were randomly allocated to commence treatment either immediately or after a 4‐week waitlist period. CBT‐T was delivered to 52 patients, by six different trainees under supervision. Measures of eating disorder cognitions and behaviours, quality of life, and general psychopathology were examined in completer and intention‐to‐treat analyses using multilevel modelling. Last observation carried forward was applied for abstinence, remission, and good outcome analyses to aid comparison with prior studies. Results: Significant improvements, associated with medium to large effect sizes, were found for eating disorder cognitions, behaviours quality of life, and negative affect from baseline to posttreatment, and at 1‐ and 3‐month follow‐up. Attrition (38.5%) was comparable with other treatment studies. Conclusion: Results provide evidence for the effectiveness of CBT‐T delivered by trainee psychologists for transdiagnostic eating disorder patients, thus tackling some important barriers for treatment. Longer follow‐up, randomised controlled trial designs, and moderator analyses will provide more robust evidence about which patients do best with a shorter therapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/erv.2684

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pellizzer, M. L., Waller, G., & Wade, T. D.
Affiliations
  • Flinders University (AU)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Corresponding author
Pellizzer, Mia L.
Venue
European Eating Disorders Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-05-27
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
557-570
ISSN
  • 1072-4133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0968
OpenAlex
W2947430069
Cited by
44
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4
FWCI
4.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Eating Disorders Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
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
cognitive behavioral therapy, eating disorders, short-term treatment, trainee psychologists, barriers to treatment, waiting lists, treatment costs, eating disorder cognitions, quality of life, negative affect, attrition
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Female, Humans, Male, 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