Virtual Versus In-Person Intensive Outpatient Treatment for Eating Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic in United States–Based Treatment Facilities: Naturalistic Study

שמור ב:
מידע ביבליוגרפי
הוצא לאור ב:Journal of Medical Internet Research vol. 27 (2025), p. e66465
מחבר ראשי: Blalock, Dan V
מחברים אחרים: Mehler, Philip S, Michel, Deborah M, Duffy, Alan, Daniel Le Grange, O'Melia, Anne M, Rienecke, Renee D
יצא לאור:
Gunther Eysenbach MD MPH, Associate Professor
נושאים:
גישה מקוונת:Citation/Abstract
Full Text + Graphics
Full Text - PDF
תגים: הוספת תג
אין תגיות, היה/י הראשונ/ה לתייג את הרשומה!

MARC

LEADER 00000nab a2200000uu 4500
001 3222368712
003 UK-CbPIL
022 |a 1438-8871 
024 7 |a 10.2196/66465  |2 doi 
035 |a 3222368712 
045 2 |b d20250101  |b d20251231 
100 1 |a Blalock, Dan V 
245 1 |a Virtual Versus In-Person Intensive Outpatient Treatment for Eating Disorders During the COVID-19 Pandemic in United States–Based Treatment Facilities: Naturalistic Study 
260 |b Gunther Eysenbach MD MPH, Associate Professor  |c 2025 
513 |a Journal Article 
520 3 |a Background:While virtual therapy has proven effective in treating eating disorders (EDs), little work has examined virtual therapy at higher levels of care, which are treatment options providing more support than weekly outpatient therapy including intensive outpatient (IOP) treatment.Objective:This study aimed to add to the limited research on in-person versus virtual treatment at a higher level of care by comparing treatment outcomes between an in-person IOP and a virtual IOP (VIOP) for patients with EDs. We hypothesized that there would be no differences in improvements between VIOP and in-person IOP groups.Methods:This study has a nonrandomized multiple cohort design. Patients with EDs receiving treatment who completed both admission and discharge questionnaires in VIOP treatment (n=231) and in-person IOP treatment (n=39) between 2021 and mid-2022 within a large ED health care system in the United States were included. The Eating Disorder Examination–Questionnaire (EDE-Q) was used to measure ED symptoms. The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) was used to measure depression, and item 9 of the PHQ-9 was used to measure suicidal ideation. Welch t tests on admission, discharge, and raw change scores were conducted. Logistic regressions were conducted predicting treatment program (reference group VIOP vs in-person IOP) from the residualized change in each outcome and were adjusted for all significantly different factors between groups.Results:VIOP patients were significantly older (mean 28.03, SD 11.09) than in-person IOP patients (mean 19.51, SD 6.98) and displayed significantly different numbers of ED diagnoses and more comorbid psychiatric diagnoses (VIOP: mean 1.23, SD 1.12; in-person IOP: mean 0.33, SD 0.84) but no differences in race (VIOP: 175/231, 75.6% White; in-person IOP: 30/39, 76.9% White), gender (VIOP: 196/231, 84.8% female; in-person IOP: 35/39, 89.7% female), or length of stay (VIOP: mean 58.84, SD 26.69; in-person IOP: mean 57.33, SD 19.67). When compared to in-person IOP patients, controlling for age, diagnosis, number of comorbid diagnoses, and admission scores, VIOP patients did not exhibit significantly different improvements in ED symptom scores (EDE-Q Global: b=0.01, SE 0.18, t=0.04, odds ratio [OR] 1.01, 95% CI 0.71-1.43; P=.97). However, VIOP patients exhibited significantly greater improvements in depression scores (PHQ-9: b=–0.14, SE 0.05, t230=–2.85, OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.79-0.96; P=.004) and the PHQ-9 suicidal ideation item (PHQ-9 item 9: b=–0.72, SE 0.34, t230=–2.13, OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.25-0.93; P=.03).Conclusions:ED outcomes were similar for VIOP and in-person IOP patients. Contrary to our hypotheses, depression and suicidal ideation outcomes improved more for VIOP patients than for in-person IOP patients. Furthermore, treatment access for non-White and older adults does not appear descriptively worse for VIOP treatment compared to in-person IOP treatment, though these trends should be further explored. VIOP treatment may improve treatment access in an equitable fashion without reducing treatment quality. 
651 4 |a United States--US 
653 |a Behavior 
653 |a Health care policy 
653 |a Telemedicine 
653 |a Medical diagnosis 
653 |a Eating disorders 
653 |a Outpatient treatment 
653 |a Bulimia 
653 |a Mental disorders 
653 |a Questionnaires 
653 |a Race 
653 |a Suicide 
653 |a Web portals 
653 |a Length of stay 
653 |a Access 
653 |a Validation studies 
653 |a Patient satisfaction 
653 |a COVID-19 
653 |a Clinical outcomes 
653 |a Health care 
653 |a Validity 
653 |a Mental depression 
653 |a Multimedia 
653 |a Change agents 
653 |a Suicidal ideation 
653 |a Pandemics 
653 |a Older people 
653 |a Binge eating 
653 |a Meals 
653 |a Treatment programs 
653 |a Patient admissions 
653 |a Mental health 
653 |a Racial differences 
653 |a Comorbidity 
653 |a Adults 
653 |a Discharge 
653 |a Disorders 
653 |a Treatment outcomes 
653 |a Patients 
653 |a Health services 
653 |a Mental health services 
653 |a Treatment methods 
653 |a Therapy 
653 |a Symptoms 
653 |a Medical treatment 
700 1 |a Mehler, Philip S 
700 1 |a Michel, Deborah M 
700 1 |a Duffy, Alan 
700 1 |a Daniel Le Grange 
700 1 |a O'Melia, Anne M 
700 1 |a Rienecke, Renee D 
773 0 |t Journal of Medical Internet Research  |g vol. 27 (2025), p. e66465 
786 0 |d ProQuest  |t Library Science Database 
856 4 1 |3 Citation/Abstract  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3222368712/abstract/embedded/H09TXR3UUZB2ISDL?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text + Graphics  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3222368712/fulltextwithgraphics/embedded/H09TXR3UUZB2ISDL?source=fedsrch 
856 4 0 |3 Full Text - PDF  |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3222368712/fulltextPDF/embedded/H09TXR3UUZB2ISDL?source=fedsrch