Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31420063›Full record

ArticleTrials2019

A randomized controlled trial of an Internet-based intervention for eating disorders and the added value of expert-patient support: study protocol.

Pieter J Rohrbach, Alexandra E Dingemans, Philip Spinhoven, Elske Van den Akker-Van Marle, Joost R Van Ginkel, Marjolein Fokkema, Markus Moessner, Stephanie Bauer, Eric F Van Furth

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Patient's Perspectives of Telepsychiatry: The Past, Present and Future.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2020
    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

9 authors.

Pieter J RohrbachGGZ Rivierduinen Eetstoornissen Ursula, Postbox 405, Sandifortdreef 19, 2300 AK, Leiden, the Netherlands. p.rohrbach@rivierduinen.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0795-466X
Alexandra E DingemansGGZ Rivierduinen Eetstoornissen Ursula, Postbox 405, Sandifortdreef 19, 2300 AK, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Philip SpinhovenInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Elske Van den Akker-Van MarleDepartment of Biomedical Data Sciences, Section Medical Decision Making, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Joost R Van GinkelInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Marjolein FokkemaInstitute of Psychology, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Markus MoessnerCenter for Psychotherapy Research, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stephanie BauerCenter for Psychotherapy Research, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Eric F Van FurthGGZ Rivierduinen Eetstoornissen Ursula, Postbox 405, Sandifortdreef 19, 2300 AK, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

ZonMw 636310001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundE-mental health has become increasingly popular in interventions for individuals with eating disorders (EDs). It has the potential to offer low-threshold interventions and guide individuals to the needed care more promptly. Featback is such an Internet-based intervention and consists of psychoeducation and a fully automated monitoring and feedback system. Preliminary findings suggest Featback to be (cost-)effective in reducing ED symptomatology. Additionally, e-mail or chat support by a psychologist did not enhance the effectiveness of Featback. Support by an expert patient (someone with a lived experience of an ED) might be more effective, since that person can effectively model healthy behavior and enhance self-efficacy in individuals struggling with an ED. The present study aims to replicate and build on earlier findings by further investigating the (cost-)effectiveness of Featback and the added value of expert-patient support.

methodsThe study will be a randomized controlled trial with a two-by-two factorial design with repeated measures. The four conditions will be (1) Featback, in which participants receive automated feedback on a short monitoring questionnaire weekly, (2) Featback with weekly e-mail or chat support from an expert patient, (3) weekly support from an expert patient, and (4) a waiting list. Participants who are 16 years or older and have at least mild self-reported ED symptoms receive a baseline measure. Subsequently, they are randomized to one of the four conditions for 8 weeks. Participants will be assessed again post-intervention and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome measure will be ED psychopathology. Secondary outcome measures are experienced social support, self-efficacy, symptoms of anxiety and depression, user satisfaction, intervention usage, and help-seeking attitudes and behaviors. DISCUSSION: The current study is the first to investigate e-mental health in combination with expert-patient support for EDs and will add to the optimization of the delivery of Internet-based interventions and expert-patient support.

trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register, NTR7065 . Registered on 7 June 2018.

Indexed as

Internet-Based InterventionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSocial SupportAdolescentFeeding and Eating DisordersFemaleHelp-Seeking BehaviorHumansOutcome Assessment, Health CareQuality of LifeYoung AdultCost-effectivenessEating disordersE-mental healthExpert patientInternetInternet-basedInterventionPeer supportPreventionTreatment

Identifiers

PMID31420063
PMCPMC6697984

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.