Evidence mapPaperPMID 40966688Full record

Observational studyJournal of medical Internet research2025

Remotely Delivered Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Adults With an Eating Disorder: Retrospective Analysis of a Real-World Patient Sample.

Jessica H Baker, Nickolas M Jones, David Freestone, Lara Effland, Cara Bohon

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

5 authors.

Jessica H BakerEquip Health, Inc, Carlsbad, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3997-2398
Nickolas M JonesEquip Health, Inc, Carlsbad, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2178-3214
David FreestoneEquip Health, Inc, Carlsbad, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4914-0226
Lara EfflandEquip Health, Inc, Carlsbad, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0524-9482
Cara BohonEquip Health, Inc, Carlsbad, CA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9978-3727

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhanced cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT-E) is the prevailing treatment approach for adult eating disorders. CBT-E is a variant of cognitive behavioral therapy, modified specifically to treat an eating disorder. Systematic reviews have established the effectiveness of CBT-E for adults when delivered face to face. However, few studies have evaluated evidence-based eating disorder treatment outcomes for programs intentionally designed to be delivered remotely.

objectiveThe objective of this study was to examine the clinical utility of CBT-E for adults with eating disorders using data from a national treatment program designed specifically for remote delivery.

methodsThis was a pre-post observational cohort study conducted in a naturalistic setting where patients received treatment through standard clinical pathways, including typical referral, intake, and treatment processes. The participant sample for the study was identified through retrospective chart review and included adult patients (aged ≥18 y) diagnosed with anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder, or other specified feeding or eating disorder. For adult patients with these diagnoses, CBT-E is generally the first line of care in the program. CBT-E was developed to be transdiagnostic, and rather than focusing on a specific diagnosis, treatment focuses on treating the problematic beliefs related to weight, shape, and eating that maintain the eating disorder. CBT-E is highly individualized, and the treatment provider creates a treatment plan to match the specific eating disorder symptoms experienced by the patient. The recommended cadence of sessions is weekly. The criterion of utility was the magnitude and consistency of symptom change in weight gain and eating disorder, depression, and anxiety symptoms during CBT-E treatment. Survival analyses assessed patient and treatment characteristics. Multilevel models assessed the changes in outcomes both over time and at weeks 20 and 40, as these time points generally aligned with CBT-E clinical trial end points.

resultsThe patient sample (N=1629) predominantly consisted of White (n=1166, 71.6%), cisgender women (n=1403, 86.1%), with a mean age of 30 (SD 12) years. The overall median length of stay was 22 (95% CI 20-25) weeks. In all, 416 (25.5%) patients required weight restoration. The estimated probability of achieving weight restoration was 0.50 (95% CI 0.43-0.57) just before week 40 of treatment. By 40 weeks of treatment, the probability of achieving subclinical status for eating disorder symptoms was 0.48 (95% CI 0.44-0.51); for depression, the probability was 0.55 (95% CI 0.51-0.59), and for anxiety, the probability was 0.56 (95% CI 0.51-0.60). Time in treatment was significantly associated with improved symptoms across all outcomes (all P<.001).

conclusionsCBT-E delivered via telehealth is clinically useful, resulting in meaningful improvements in weight and eating disorder, depression, and anxiety symptoms in an outpatient setting. However, the absence of a comparison group and inclusion of a single treatment setting may limit generalizability.

Indexed as

Cognitive Behavioral TherapyFeeding and Eating DisordersAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeYoung Adultadultcognitive behavioral therapyfeeding and eating disordersmental healthobservational studyoutpatientstelemedicinetreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID40966688
PMCPMC12491894

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.