Hall 1987.
| Methods | RCT | |
| Participants | Country: United Kingdom Diagnostic tool: ‘primary anorexia nervosa’; criteria not stated No. screened: No detail No. randomised: Individual and family: 15; Dietetic advice: 15 No. started trial: Individual and family, Dietetic advice: no detail No. dropped out during intervention: Individual and family: 1; Dietetic advice: 4 No. dropped out during follow‐up: Individual and family: 0; Dietetic advice: 0 No. analysed (LOCF): Individual and family: 15; Dietetic advice: 15 Number analysed (OC): Individual and family: 15; Dietetic advice: 15 Mean age in years (SD): Individual and family: 19.55; Dietetic advice:19.57 Age range in years: Total: 13 ‐ 27; Individual and family: 14 ‐ 25; Dietetic advice: 13 ‐ 27 Gender %: All female Subtype: No detail Age of onset in years: Individual and family: 17.07 (range 12 ‐ 21); Dietetic advice: 17.53 (range 12 ‐ 25) Duration of illness: Total : 6 to 72 months; Individual and family: 29.7 months (10 had received previous treatment), Dietetic advice: 24.5 months (8 had received previous treatment) Baseline weight in kgs: Total : < 85% of MMPW with amenorrhoea; Individual and family: 41.00 (mean 25.35% below ABW); Dietetic advice: 39.54 (mean 28.16% below ABW) Baseline BMI: Individual and family: 15.7; Dietetic advice: 15.00 Baseline eating disorder scale score: Individual and family: mean desired body weight 42.7 kg; Dietetic advice: mean desired body weight 44.2 kg Baseline purging: No detail Comorbidity: No detail Details on living arrangements: No detail Family education/employment/income:Total : social classes I ‐ III Recruitment strategy: Consecutive referrals to 1 of the study authors; mostly referred by general practitioner Exclusion criteria: No detail | |
| Interventions | Setting of care: Outpatient Training/qualification of care provider(s): Unclear: “therapists was trained and experienced in these therapeutic approaches” p. 186, no other statement Treatment manual: No: “proportions of individual psychodynamic therapy and family therapy depended on clinical judgment” pg. 186 Supervision of treatment: No detail Adherence to treatment: No detail Intervention group 1 Description: Combined individual and family psychotherapy Focus on the role of AN in relationship of the participant with her family and others with efforts made to change those aspects of relationship that stifled participant's development and maintained AN, especially over‐protectedness, conflict avoidance enmeshment and distancing within the family. Broad goals to encourage participant development both within and separately from the family and to promote insight Length: 12 sessions Intervention group 2 Description: Dietary advice Length: 12 sessions | |
| Outcomes | Eating psychopathology CCEI (Crown 1979) Morgan Russell Assessment Schedule (Morgan 1988) Global score calculated from the mean of these Behavioural indices Scores for body weight and menstrual function calculated from CCEI | |
| Notes | Included in family therapy vs educational intervention Family therapy categorised as other Funded by: No detail | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No detail |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No detail |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | High risk | Therapists and participants cannot be blinded in trials of family‐based therapy |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Quote: “one year after the assessment interview, all the subjects were interviewed by an assessor who was blind to the treatment allocated” pg. 186 |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Numbers of dropouts described. No details on why participants did not complete treatment. ITT analysis undertaken |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | High risk | Authors report that they collected data on eating disorder psychopathology, but the data are not reported in a format that is useable for analysis. No reporting on eating behaviour outcomes i.e. restricting, purging behaviours No useable data |
| Other bias | High risk |
|