ArticleResearch square2024
Development and usability testing of an online platform for provider training and implementation of cognitive-behavioral therapy guided self-help for eating disorders.
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Most individuals with eating disorders (EDs) do not receive treatment, and those who do receive care typically do not receive evidence-based treatment, partly due to lack of accessible provider training. This study developed a novel "all-in-one" online platform for disseminating training for mental health providers in cognitive-behavioral therapy guided self-help (CBTgsh) for EDs and supporting its implementation. The aim of the study was to obtain usability data from the online platform prior to evaluating its effects on provider training outcomes and patient ED symptom outcomes in an open pilot trial. Methods: Nine mental health provider participants (n = 4 in Cycle 1; n = 5 in Cycle 2) and 9 patient participants (n = 4 in Cycle 1; n = 5 in Cycle 2) were enrolled over two cycles of usability testing. In Cycle 1, we recruited providers and patients separately to complete brief platform testing sessions. In Cycle 2, we recruited provider-patient dyads; providers completed training using the platform and subsequently delivered CBTgsh to a patient for three weeks. Usability was assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS), the Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use Questionnaire (USE), and semi-structured interviews. Results: Interview feedback converged on two themes for providers (applicability of program for real-world use, platform structure and function) and two themes for patients (barriers and facilitators to engagement, perceived treatment effects). SUS and USE scores were in the "average" to "good" ranges across cycles. Conclusions: Findings from this study demonstrate preliminary feasibility and acceptability of the online platform. Data collected in this study will inform further refinements to the online platform. The platform's effects on provider training outcomes and patient ED symptom outcomes will be evaluated in an open pilot trial. Given the wide treatment gap for EDs and barriers to dissemination and implementation of evidence-based treatments, the online platform represents a scalable solution that could improve access to evidence-based care for EDs.
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.