Cited by 91Eating Disorders and BehaviorsAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Guided self-help for bulimia nervosa in primary care: a randomized controlled trial

BANASIAK, SUSAN J., PAXTON, SUSAN J., HAY, PHILLIPA·2005·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: To increase access to cognitive behavioural therapy for bulimia nervosa new delivery modes are being examined. Guided Self-Help (GSH) in primary care is potentially valuable in this respect. This research aimed to compare outcomes following GSH delivered by general practitioners (GPs) in the normal course of their practice to a delayed treatment control (DTC) condition, and to examine the maintenance of treatment gains at 3 and 6 months following completion of GSH. METHOD: Participants were 109 women with full syndrome or sub-threshold bulimia nervosa, randomly allocated to GSH ( n = 54) and DTC ( n = 55). The GSH group received direction and support from a GP over a 17-week period while working through the manual in Bulimia Nervosa and Binge-Eating: A Guide to Recovery by P. J. Cooper (1995). GSH and DTC groups were assessed pre-treatment and 1 week following the 17-week intervention or waiting interval. The GSH group was reassessed at 3- and 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Intention-to-treat analyses at end of treatment revealed significant improvements in bulimic and psychological symptoms in GSH compared with DTC, reduction in mean frequency of binge-eating episodes by 60% in GSH and 6% in DTC, and remission from all binge-eating and compensatory behaviours in 28% of the GSH and 11% of the DTC sample. Treatment gains were maintained at 3- and 6-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: Outcomes in GSH compare favourably with those of specialist-delivered psychological treatments. These findings are considered in light of the nature of the therapy offered and the primary care context.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291705004769

Cites

1 of 1 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
BANASIAK, S. J., PAXTON, S. J., & HAY, P.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
  • James Cook University (AU)
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2005-09
Volume
35
Issue
9
Pages
1283-1294
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W2028015351
Cited by
91
References
1
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 6
FWCI
8.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
bulimia nervosa, guided self-help, primary care, general practitioners, binge eating, compensatory behavior, maintenance therapy, access to psychological treatment, women
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Physicians, Family, Primary Health Care, Self Care, Time Factors, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Treatment Outcome, Bulimia Nervosa

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