Cited by 13Eating Disorders and BehaviorsDigital Mental Health InterventionsNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

An Internet-based intervention for eating disorders consisting of automated computer-tailored feedback with or without supplemented frequent or infrequent support from a coach: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Open access
Aardoom, Jiska J, Dingemans, Alexandra E, Spinhoven, Philip, Roijen, Leona Hakkaart-van, Van Furth, Eric F·2013·Trials

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Several Internet-based interventions for eating disorders have shown their effectiveness. Still, there is a need to refine such interventions given that most existing programs seem to be limited by their static 'one-size-fits-all' approach. 'Featback', an Internet-based intervention for symptoms of eating disorders provides a more individualized approach. It consists of several components (psychoeducation, a fully automated monitoring and feedback system, and support from a coach), which can be matched to participants' needs and preferences. Until now, it is unclear whether online self-help interventions for eating disorders with support are more effective than those without. The aims of the current study are i) to examine the relative effectiveness of (the different components of) Featback; ii) to examine predictors, moderators and mediators of intervention responses; iii) to report on practical experiences with Featback; and iv) to examine the cost-effectiveness of Featback. METHODS/DESIGN: Individuals aged 16 years or older, with mild to severe eating disorder symptoms will be randomized to one of the four study conditions. In condition one, participants receive the basic version of Featback, consisting of psychoeducation and a fully automated monitoring and feedback system. In conditions two and three, participants receive the basic version of Featback supplemented with the possibility of infrequent (weekly) or frequent (three times a week) e-mail, chat, or Skype support from a coach, respectively. The fourth condition is a waiting list control condition. Participants are assessed at baseline, post-intervention (8 weeks), and at 3- and 6-month follow-up (the latter except for participants in the waiting list control condition). Primary outcome measures are disordered eating behaviors and attitudes. Secondary outcome measures are (eating disorder-related) quality of life, self-stigma of seeking help, self-esteem, mastery and support, symptoms of depression and anxiety, repetitive negative thinking, motivation to change, user satisfaction, compliance, and help-seeking attitudes and behaviors. DISCUSSION: This study aims to provide more insight into the (cost-) effectiveness of Internet-based interventions for eating disorders, particularly those with and without professional support, as well as different levels of support. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR3646.

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 · 10.1186/1745-6215-14-340

Cites

52 of 52 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?

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
Aardoom, J. J., Dingemans, A. E., Spinhoven, P., Roijen, L. H.-V., & Van Furth, E. F.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
Corresponding author
Aardoom, Jiska J
Venue
Trials
Published
2013
Volume
14
Issue
1
Pages
340
ISSN
1745-6215 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2117976845
Cited by
13
References
52
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4
FWCI
1.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Trials (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePub (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission
  • Rivierduinen
  • Executive Agency for Health and Consumers
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
eating disorders, online intervention, automated monitoring, coach support, online self-help, psychoeducation, disordered eating, cost-effectiveness, help-seeking attitudes, self-stigma, quality of life, self-esteem, anxiety and depression, repetitive negative thinking, motivation for change, user satisfaction
MeSH terms
Feeding and Eating Disorders, Automation, Clinical Protocols, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Counseling, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Patient Education as Topic, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Therapy, Computer-Assisted, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome, Health Care Costs, Internet, Feedback, Psychological

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