European eating disorders review : the journal of the Eating Disorders Association · 2026
Open Versus Concealed Weighing: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Pilot Study of Adults With Anorexia Nervosa in Residential Treatment.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Anderson Kim, Blalock Dan, Boldt Casey, Duffy Alan, Mehler Phil, Rienecke Renee
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study examined the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a comparative trial of open versus concealed weighing in a U.S. residential treatment programme for adults with anorexia nervosa (AN).
METHOD: Thirty-four participants were assigned to either open (n = 18) or concealed (n = 16) weighing. Feasibility was assessed through recruitment and retention; acceptability was evaluated using patient-reported responses on a 14-item Patient Experience with Weighing (PEW) questionnaire. A single item measuring Fear of Knowing Weight (FKW) was used to examine how fear changed across weighing methods.
RESULTS: Recruitment was adequate in both conditions, though enrolment was higher in the open weighing arm (75% vs. 58%). No participants withdrew from the open group, whereas 54% of those in the concealed group discontinued. Both groups rated their weighing method as somewhat helpful. Reductions in FKW were significantly greater in the open weighing group (b = -2.57, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that a controlled comparison of weighing procedures is feasible in residential care for AN. While both methods were viewed as somewhat helpful, open weighing showed stronger associations with reduced fear of knowing weight. Familiarity with a weighing method may be an important factor to consider when introducing or changing weighing practices.
METHOD: Thirty-four participants were assigned to either open (n = 18) or concealed (n = 16) weighing. Feasibility was assessed through recruitment and retention; acceptability was evaluated using patient-reported responses on a 14-item Patient Experience with Weighing (PEW) questionnaire. A single item measuring Fear of Knowing Weight (FKW) was used to examine how fear changed across weighing methods.
RESULTS: Recruitment was adequate in both conditions, though enrolment was higher in the open weighing arm (75% vs. 58%). No participants withdrew from the open group, whereas 54% of those in the concealed group discontinued. Both groups rated their weighing method as somewhat helpful. Reductions in FKW were significantly greater in the open weighing group (b = -2.57, p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that a controlled comparison of weighing procedures is feasible in residential care for AN. While both methods were viewed as somewhat helpful, open weighing showed stronger associations with reduced fear of knowing weight. Familiarity with a weighing method may be an important factor to consider when introducing or changing weighing practices.