ArticleTrials2019
Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Internet-based selective eating disorder prevention: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial within the ProHEAD Consortium.
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intentions and barriers to help-seeking in adolescents and young adults differing in depression severity: cross-sectional results from a school-based mental health project.Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health · 2024Article
- Development of decision rules for an adaptive aftercare intervention based on individual symptom courses for agoraphobia patients.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Reasons for non-participation of children and adolescents in a large-scale school-based mental health project.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Moderators of pre-post changes in school-based mental health promotion: Psychological stress symptom decrease for adolescents with mental health problems, knowledge increase for all.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Establishing a Working Definition of User Experience for eHealth Interventions of Self-reported User Experience Measures With eHealth Researchers and Adolescents: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe development of efficacious, cost-effective, and widely accessible programs for the prevention of eating disorders (EDs) is crucial in order to reduce the ED-related burden of illness. Programs using dissonance-based and cognitive behavioral approaches are most effective for the selective prevention of ED. Internet-based delivery is assumed to maximize the reach and impact of preventive efforts. However, the current evidence for Internet-based ED prevention is limited. The present trial evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of two new interventions (based on dissonance theory and principles of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT)) that are implemented as add-ons to the existing Internet-based ED prevention program ProYouth.
methodsThe trial is one of five sub-projects of the German multicenter consortium ProHEAD. It is a three-arm, parallel, randomized controlled superiority trial. Participants will be randomized to (1) the online program ProYouth (active control condition) or (2) ProYouth plus a structured dissonance-based module or (3) ProYouth plus a CBT-based chat group intervention. As part of ProHEAD, a representative school-based sample of N = 15,000 students (≥ 12 years) will be screened for mental health problems. N = 309 participants at risk for ED (assessed with the Weight Concerns Scale (WCS) and the Short Evaluation of Eating Disorders (SEED)) will be included in the present trial. Online assessments will be conducted at baseline, at end of intervention (6 weeks), at 6 months follow-up, and - as part of ProHEAD - at 12 and 24 months follow-up. The primary outcome is ED-related impairment (assessed with the Child version of the Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (ChEDE-Q)) at the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes include ED-related symptomatology at follow-up, ED-related stigma, ED-related help-seeking, and acceptance of and compliance with the interventions. For the health economic evaluation data on costs of the interventions, healthcare utilization and health-related quality of life will be assessed. DISCUSSION: This is the first study augmenting a flexible prevention approach such as ProYouth with structured evidence-based modules in order to overcome some of the key limitations in the current practice of ED prevention.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), DRKS00014679 . Registered on 25 April 2018.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.