Group RO-DBT vs CBT-E in Adolescent Inpatients with Anorexia Nervosa
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Feasibility Study Comparing Group Radically Open-Dialectical Behavioural Therapy (RO-DBT) and Group Enhanced Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT-E) in a Cohort of Adolescent Inpatients with Anorexia Nervosa
IRAS ID
205400
Contact name
Erica Cini
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
The Priory Group
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 9 months, 31 days
Research summary
Aim: A study to explore feasibility and service user satisfaction of group RO-DBT and group CBT-E in adolescent inpatients with Anorexia Nervosa in a London-based eating disorder unit. This feasibility study will inform a future randomised controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of these interventions in the management of anorexia nervosa in adolescents in an inpatient settings.
Objectives: To compare a range of outcomes between the two interventions, using a range of established outcome and service-user satisfaction measures. This pilot study will add to the research base and also provide the foundations for a future randomised controlled study.
Methodology: The study will be looking at 2 groups of inpatients in a London-based hospital who engage in key-work, individual and family therapy in addition to a group/educational program. Following clinical evaluation and informed by participant preference, participants will be assigned to either RO-DBT group sessions or group CBT-E (but not RO-DBT), who will be assigned depending on clinical evaluation. These sessions will be delivered by trained therapists who have adapted the original models according to our unit’s context and needs.
Treatment compliance and treatment satisfaction will be the main outcome measures with Weight-for-Height, EDEQ, ED-QoL, RCADS, HONOSCA and CGAS will be measured (i) prior to the onset and (ii) at the end of group CBT/RO-DBT therapy as secondary outcome measures.
REC name
Yorkshire & The Humber - Leeds West Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
16/YH/0372
Date of REC Opinion
23 Sep 2016
REC opinion
Unfavourable Opinion