| Literature DB >> 21833243 |
Susan G Simpson1, Emma Morrow, Michiel van Vreeswijk, Caroline Reid.
Abstract
This paper describes the use of Group Schema Therapy for Eating Disorders (ST-E-g) in a case series of eight participants with chronic eating disorders and high levels of co-morbidity. Treatment was comprised of 20 sessions which included cognitive, experiential, and interpersonal strategies, with an emphasis on behavioral change. Specific schema-based strategies focused on bodily felt-sense and body-image, as well as emotional regulation skills. Six attended until end of treatment, two dropped-out at mid-treatment. Eating disorder severity, global schema severity, shame, and anxiety levels were reduced between pre- and post-therapy, with a large effect size at follow-up. Clinically significant improvement in eating severity was found in four out of six completers. Group completers showed a mean reduction in schema severity of 43% at post-treatment, and 59% at follow-up. By follow-up, all completers had achieved over 60% improvement in schema severity. Self-report feedback suggests that group factors may catalyze the change process in schema therapy by increasing perceptions of support and encouragement to take risks and try out new behaviors, whilst providing a de-stigmatizing and de-shaming therapeutic experience.Entities:
Keywords: case series; chronicity; co-morbidity; eating disorder; group; schema therapy
Year: 2010 PMID: 21833243 PMCID: PMC3153792 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2010.00182
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Sociodemographic data for eight group participants.
| DSM-IV diagnosis | Chronicity of eating disorder (years) | Medication (Y/N) | BMI | Age | Occupation | Educational level | Marital status | Sessions attended | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | BN | 20 | N | 25.2 | 32 | Bookseller | HND (diploma) | Single | 20 |
| 2 | EDNOS (BED) | 8 | Y | 37.9 | 39 | Solicitor | Postgrad. Diploma | Married | 20 |
| 3 | EDNOS | 7 | Y | 23.9 | 35 | Project Manager | Honors degree | De-facto | 20 |
| 4 | AN (B/P) | 15 | Y | 17.9 | 28 | Care Assistant | Bachelor degree | De-facto | 20 |
| 5 | EDNOS | 5+ | Y | 20.2 | 37 | Housekeeping | Standard grade | Single | 20 |
| 6 | EDNOS | 2 | N | 21.8 | 30 | Housekeeping | Standard grade | Married | 20 |
| 7 | EDNOS | 3+ | Y | 19.2 | 30 | Community Living Assistant | Standard grade | Married | 9 discontin. |
| 8 | EDNOS | 5+ | N | 21.3 | 30 | Administrator | Standard grade | De-facto | 8 discontin. |
*BN, bulimia nervosa; AN, anorexia nervosa; AN (B/P), anorexia nervosa, binge-eating and purging sub-type;
EDNOS, eating disorder not otherwise specified; BED, binge-eating disorder.
Figure 1Group mean scores on YSI-L2, depression (HADS), anxiety (HADS), Shame, EQ-VAS, EDE-Q from pre-treatment through mid, post, and follow-up.
Figure 2Global scores on YSI-L2, Depression (HADS), Anxiety (HADS), Shame, EQ VAS, EDE-Q from pre-treatment through mid-, post-, and follow-up.
Means, standard deviations, .
| Measure | Pre (SD) | Mid (SD) | Post (SD) | Follow-up (SD) | Total (SD) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YSI-L2 | 69.29 (29.0) | 44.57 (16.50) | 37.60 (36.32) | 23.50 (22.71) | 45.04 (30.08) | 4.40 (0.02 |
| Depression | 10.14 (5.24) | 8.29 (5.22) | 7.2 (4.82) | 6.67 (5.24) | 8.2 (5.02) | 1.82 (1.19) |
| Anxiety | 13.43 (3.05) | 11.14 (4.06) | 9.4 (2.51) | 7.5 (1.76) | 10.56 (3.64) | 5.21 (0.04 |
| Shame | 3.30 (0.74) | 3.31 (0.31) | 2.85 (0.68) | 2.66 (1.31) | 3.06 (0.82) | 3.26 (0.06) |
| EQ VAS | 52.71 (11.19) | 56.14 (16.19) | 66.40 (17.21) | 68.50 (14.54) | 60.20 (15.38) | 3.91 (0.03 |
| EQE-Q | 4.69 (1.07) | 3.82 (1.59) | 3.94 (1.84) | 2.42 (1.42) | 3.75 (1.62) | 4.52 (0.02 |
*Indicates significance to the 0.05 level.
Effect size (.
| Treatment period | YSI-L2 ( | Depression ( | Anxiety ( | Shame ( | EQ -VAS ( | EDE-Q ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre to Post | 1.00 | 0.52 | 1.45 | 0.97 | 0.89 | 0.75 |
| Pre to Follow-up | 1.59 | 0.39 | 1.53 | 0.91 | 1.00 | 1.70 |
| Post to Follow-up | 0.08 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 0.005 | 0.14 | 0.02 |
Reliable change (RC) and clinical significance (CS) pre-to-post and pre-to-follow-up for treatment completers.
| ID | Depression (HADS) Pre–post | Anxiety (HADS) Pre–post | EDE-Q Pre–post | Depression (HADS) Pre- to follow-up | Anxiety ( HADS) Pre- to follow-up | EDE-Q Pre-follow-up | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RC | CS | RC | CS | RC | CS | RC | CS | RC | CS | RC | CS | |
| 1 | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | (sig.) | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. |
| 2 | sig. | sig. | sig. | n.s. | sig. | n.s. | sig. | sig. | sig. | n.s. | sig. | sig. |
| 3 | sig. | sig. | sig. | n.s. | sig. | n.s. | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. |
| 4 | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | sig. | sig. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | sig. | sig. |
| 5 | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | sig. | n.s. | sig. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | sig. | n.s. |
| 6 | n.s. | n.s. | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. | n.s. | n.s. | sig. | sig. | sig. | sig. |
| 7* | sig. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | ||||||
| 8* | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | n.s. | ||||||
Use of brackets ( ) denotes that the change demonstrated moved in the opposite direction from what would be clinically desirable (i.e., the individual's score worsened over time). *Mid-therapy scores were used as final outcome data for participants 7 and 8, due to drop-out.
Guideline cut-off scores for the magnitude of effect size: 0.2–0.5 = small; 0.5–0.8 = medium; 0.8 < = large.