Cited by 29Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

Pilot assessment of a virtual intensive outpatient program for adults with eating disorders

Blalock, Dan V., Le Grange, Daniel, Johnson, Craig, Duffy, Alan, Manwaring, Jamie, Tallent, Casey N., Schneller, Karen, Solomon, Ashley M. +3 more·2020·European Eating Disorders Review

Abstract

Access to evidence‐based treatment for eating disorders is severely limited by patient barriers and available clinician training. While clinical parameters often point to the need for a high level of care, patients may resist pursuing higher levels of care due to these barriers. One option that might mitigate such obstacles is the provision of a higher level of care via internet‐based treatment for eating disorders. We sought to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary clinical outcomes associated with treatment of eating disorders through virtual intensive outpatient programming (VIOP). Fifty‐seven patients meeting DSM‐5 criteria for an eating disorder participated in VIOP. Of the 57 patients in VIOP treatment, 3 did not complete voluntary measures at admission or discharge, and 9 additional patients did not complete voluntary measures at discharge. Overall, 45 VIOP patients completed admission and discharge assessments, including a net promoter score (NPS) question assessing patient acceptability. Recruitment, treatment adherence, and completion of assessments in VIOP were feasible and acceptable. VIOP patients showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in all outcomes measured, including self‐reported eating disorder symptoms, depression, self‐esteem, quality of life, and overall satisfaction. VIOP appears feasible, acceptable, and evidences clinically meaningful changes in eating and mood disorder symptoms.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/erv.2785

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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

1 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blalock, D. V., Le Grange, D., Johnson, C., Duffy, A., Manwaring, J., Tallent, C. N., Schneller, K., Solomon, A. M., Mehler, P. S., McClanahan, S. F., & Rienecke, R. D.
Affiliations
  • Duke University (US)
  • Department of Psychiatry University of California San Francisco California USA
  • Eating Recover Center and Insight Behavioral Health Centers Denver, Colorado USA
  • Denver Health Medical Center (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Rienecke, Renee D.
Venue
European Eating Disorders Review
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-08-26
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
789-795
ISSN
  • 1072-4133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0968
OpenAlex
W3080196344
Cited by
29
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • European Eating Disorders Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (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 › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
eating disorders, online therapy, telemedicine, feasibility, acceptability, medication adherence, depression, self-esteem, quality of life, patient satisfaction, Net Promoter Score
MeSH terms
Adult, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Female, Humans, Outpatients, Pilot Projects, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires

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