Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26865980›Full record

ArticleJournal of eating disorders2016

Process evaluation of the MOSAIC trial: treatment experience of two psychological therapies for out-patient treatment of Anorexia Nervosa.

Kelly Ann Zainal, Beth Renwick, Alexandra Keyes, Anna Lose, Martha Kenyon, Hannah DeJong, Hannah Broadbent, Lucy Serpell, Lorna Richards, Eric Johnson-Sabine and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Kelly Ann Zainal *Section of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, PO Box 59, SE5 8AF London, UK.
Beth Renwick *Section of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, PO Box 59, SE5 8AF London, UK.
Alexandra KeyesSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, PO Box 59, SE5 8AF London, UK.
Anna LoseSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, PO Box 59, SE5 8AF London, UK.
Martha KenyonSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, PO Box 59, SE5 8AF London, UK.
Hannah DeJongSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, PO Box 59, SE5 8AF London, UK.
Hannah BroadbentSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, PO Box 59, SE5 8AF London, UK.
Lucy SerpellHope Wing, Porters Avenue Health Centre, North East London Foundation Trust, Dagenham, Essex UK.
Lorna RichardsThe Phoenix Wing, St Ann's Hospital, Barnett, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust, Tottenham, London, UK.
Eric Johnson-SabineThe Phoenix Wing, St Ann's Hospital, Barnett, Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust, Tottenham, London, UK.
Nicky BoughtonOxford Adult Eating Disorder Service, Cotswold House, Warneford Hospital, Oxford NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Linette WhiteheadOxford Adult Eating Disorder Service, Cotswold House, Warneford Hospital, Oxford NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Janet TreasureSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, PO Box 59, SE5 8AF London, UK.
Ulrike SchmidtSection of Eating Disorders, Department of Psychological Medicine, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, PO Box 59, SE5 8AF London, UK.
MOSAIC trial group
King's College London · GBBarnet Enfield and Haringey Mental Health Trust · GBWarneford Hospital · GB

Funding

Department of Health RP-PG-0606-1043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study is part of a series of process evaluations within the MOSAIC Trial (Maudsley Outpatient Study of Treatments for Anorexia Nervosa and Related Conditions). This randomised controlled trial (RCT) compared two psychological treatments, the Maudsley Model for Treatment of Adults with Anorexia Nervosa (MANTRA) and Specialist Supportive Clinical Management (SSCM) for adult outpatients with Anorexia Nervosa. The present process study integrates quantitative (treatment acceptability and credibility) and qualitative (written) feedback to evaluate patients' treatment experiences.

methodAll 142 MOSAIC participants were asked to (a) rate treatment acceptability and credibility on visual analogue scales (VAS) at six and 12 months post-randomisation, and (b) provide written feedback regarding their views on their treatment at 12 months. Transcripts were first analysed thematically and then rated according to the global valence of feedback (positive, mixed/negative).

results114/142 (80.3 %) MOSAIC participants provided VAS data and 82 (57.7 %) provided written feedback. At 12 months, MANTRA patients gave significantly higher acceptability and credibility ratings compared to SSCM patients. A significantly higher proportion of MANTRA patients provided written feedback. MANTRA patients also tended to write in more detail and to give globally more positive feedback when compared to individuals receiving SSCM. Qualitative themes suggest that patients experienced the two treatments differently in terms of characteristics and outcomes.

conclusionsThis study highlights the benefits of incorporating qualitative and quantitative data into RCT process evaluations. MANTRA patients were more willing to express their views on treatment and generally felt more positively about this than those receiving SSCM.

Indexed as

Anorexia nervosaMANTRAProcess evaluationRandomised–controlled trialSpecialist supportive clinical management

Identifiers

PMID26865980
PMCPMC4748560
OpenAlexW2273202132

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.