Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34983675›Full record

ArticleJournal of eating disorders2022

Recruitment, adherence and attrition challenges in internet-based indicated prevention programs for eating disorders: lessons learned from a randomised controlled trial of ProYouth OZ.

Kathina Ali, Daniel B Fassnacht, Louise M Farrer, Elizabeth Rieger, Markus Moessner, Stephanie Bauer, Kathleen M Griffiths

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Knowledge and Myths about Eating Disorders in a German Adolescent Sample: A Preliminary Investigation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kathina AliResearch School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. kathina.ali@flinders.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5169-0553
Daniel B FassnachtResearch School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Louise M FarrerCentre for Mental Health Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Elizabeth RiegerResearch School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Markus MoessnerCentre for Psychotherapy Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stephanie BauerCentre for Psychotherapy Research, University Hospital Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
Kathleen M GriffithsResearch School of Psychology, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.
Australian National University · AUHeidelberg University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGrowing evidence supports the effectiveness of Internet-based prevention programs for eating disorders, but the adjunctive benefit of synchronous peer support has yet to be investigated. In the current study, a randomised controlled trial was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of an indicated Internet-based prevention program (ProYouth OZ) with and without peer-to-peer support in reducing disordered eating behaviours and attitudes.

methodFifty young adults (18-25 years) with eating disorder symptoms were randomised to one of three study conditions: (1) ProYouth OZ (without peer-to-peer support), (2) ProYouth OZ Peers (with peer-to-peer support), and (3) a waitlist control group. Outcomes were assessed at three different time points. Eating disorder symptoms (primary outcome) were measured with the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire.

resultsOf 415 screened participants, 73 (17.6%) were eligible and 213 (51.3%) excluded due to severe eating disorder symptoms. Fifteen participants (30%) completed the post-intervention survey. Of the two intervention groups, 20.6% failed to access any component of the program. Of 17 ProYouth OZ Peers participants, 58.8% attended at least one chat session, 20% attended 2-5 sessions, and 11.8% attended all six sessions. Due to limited outcome data, it was not possible to statistically examine between-group differences in outcomes. Visual inspection of individual profiles revealed that both ProYouth OZ Peers participants who completed the post-intervention survey showed a decrease in disordered eating compared with only one of the six completers in ProYouth OZ.

conclusionFindings highlight the challenges of trialling Internet-based eating disorder prevention programs in the community. The study identified a large group of emerging adults with eating disorders who were interested in an Internet-based program, suggesting a high level of unmet need. Future research on synchronous peer-to-peer support in Internet-based prevention for eating disorders is warranted. Further studies are required to identify optimal strategies for reaching this population (e.g., online vs. offline) and evaluating the effectiveness of a range of strategies for promoting engagement. Finally, there is an urgent need to develop innovative widely accessible interventions for individuals who experience clinically relevant eating disorder symptomatology but may not be ready or able to seek professional face-to-face treatment.

trial registrationACTRN12615001250527, Registered 16 November 2015, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?ACTRN=12615001250527.

Indexed as

BarriersBody imageDigital healthEating disorder literacyHelp-seekingMental healthOnline interventionPeer supportStigma

Identifiers

PMID34983675
PMCPMC8725518
OpenAlexW4205140471

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.