Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31004832›Full record

SynthesisClinical psychology review2019

Meta-analytic review of dissonance-based eating disorder prevention programs: Intervention, participant, and facilitator features that predict larger effects.

Eric Stice, C Nathan Marti, Heather Shaw, Paul Rohde

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical psychology review, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06139601 (A Single Session Community-Based Body Empowerment Session), which is not on this map. Cited by 52 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT06139601 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

A Single Session Community-Based Body Empowerment Session

TypeinterventionalSponsorEquip HealthRan2024 to 2025Enrolled75ConditionsBody ImageArmsVirtual single session intervention
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Eric SticeOregon Research Institute, United States. Electronic address: estice@ori.org.
C Nathan MartiOregon Research Institute, United States.
Heather ShawOregon Research Institute, United States.
Paul RohdeOregon Research Institute, United States.

Funding

Dissonance Eating Disorder Prevention: Clinician-Led, Peer-Led, vs Web-Delivered R01MH097720 · NIMH · OREGON RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI STICE, ERIC M · 2013 to 2017
$4.2M
Eating Disorders Prevention: An Effectiveness Trial for At-Risk College StudentsR01MH086582 · NIMH · OREGON RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BUTRYN, MEGHAN, STICE, ERIC M · 2010 to 2014
$2.9M
Target Engagment of a Novel Dissonance-Based Treatment for DSM-5 Eating Disorders.R33MH111782 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI STICE, ERIC M · 2019 to 2023
$2.4M
Eating Disorder Prevention Program Effectiveness TrialR01MH070699 · NIMH · OREGON RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI STICE, ERIC M · 2005 to 2009
$1.9M
TEST OF A DISSONANCE EATING DISORDER PREVENTION PROGRAMR01MH061957 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN · PI STICE, ERIC M · 2001 to 2005
$1.4M
Target Engagment of a Novel Dissonance-Based Treatment for DSM-5 Eating Disorders.R61MH111782 · NIMH · OREGON RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI STICE, ERIC M · 2017 to 2018
$1.3M
NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH061957NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH070699NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH086582NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH097720NIMH NIH HHS R33 MH111782NIMH NIH HHS R61 MH111782
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many trials have provided support for dissonance-based eating disorder prevention programs. This meta-analytic review characterized the average intervention effects and tested whether various intervention, participant, and facilitator features correlated with larger effects to guide implementation of optimally effective versions of this program. We identified 56 trials that evaluated 68 dissonance-based eating disorder prevention programs (7808 participants). Average intervention effect sizes (d) relative to minimal intervention control conditions and credible alternative interventions (respectively) were 0.57 and 0.31 for thin-ideal internalization, 0.42 and 0.18 for body dissatisfaction, 0.37 and 0.17 for dieting, 0.29 and 0.21 for negative affect, and 0.31 and 0.13 for eating disorder symptoms. As hypothesized, effects were larger for interventions with more dissonance-inducing activities, more group sessions, and larger group sizes, as well as when delivered in-person versus on-line, sessions were recorded, participation was voluntary, body dissatisfaction was required, participants were mid-adolescents or adults (versus older adolescence), there were more ethnic minority participants, groups were led by clinicians versus researchers and at least two facilitators, and when facilitators received more training and supervision. Unexpectedly from a dissonance-induction perspective, effects were larger when participants were compensated. Results offer directions for maximizing the benefits of implementation efforts with dissonance-based eating disorder prevention programs, and may hold lessons for preventing other public health problems with dissonance-based interventions.

Indexed as

Cognitive DissonanceOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareFeeding and Eating DisordersHumansDissonanceEating disorderEffect size moderatorsMeta-analysisPrevention programs

Identifiers

PMID31004832
PMCPMC6536334

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.