67 Dialectical behavior therapy adapted for binge eating compared to cognitive behavior therapy in obese adults with binge eating disorder 3 Clinically meaningful change was operationalized as proposed by Jacobson & Truax (1991). We calculated the percentage of patients on the EDE-Q Global score that shifted from being closer to the mean of the dysfunctional group (current sample: mean = 3.29; SD = .959) to being closer to the mean of a functional group (i.e. a normative non-students sample of males and females from the United Kingdom: mean = 1.92; SD = 1.42, Carey et al., 2019). Results Study Participants A total of 74 participants were randomized: 33 to CBT+ and 41 to DBT-BED. Participants included 66 (89.2%) women and 8 (10.8%) men, with an average age of 37.3 (SD = 11.8; range = 18-67) and an average duration of illness of 15.3 years (SD = 10.9; range = 1-45). BMI of participants averaged 39.9 (SD = 5.6; range = 30.5-55.5). The majority of participants (n = 49 [66.2%]) lived with a partner/spouse. Treatment groups did not differ significantly on any demographic characteristics, BMI, or outcome measures at baseline. Study Retention A total of 7 (9.5%) participants dropped out of the treatment and/or study during the course of the trial, including 2 (6.1%) from CBT+ and 5 (12.2%) from DBT-BED (Fisher’s Exact p = .451). Of the 74 participants that were randomized, 67 (90.5%) completed end of treatment assessments and 53 (71.6%) completed follow-up assessments. Assessment completion rates for CBT+ and DBT-BED were 90.9% vs. 90.2% (Fisher’s Exact p = 1.00) respectively at end of treatment and 78.8% vs. 65.9% (Fisher’s Exact p = .301) at follow-up. Primary Outcomes Mean scores on primary measures of outcome for CBT+ and DBT-BED groups at baseline, end of treatment, and follow-up are presented in Table 1. The CBT+ group experienced greater reductions in EDE-Q Global score that approached significance at end of treatment (p = .060) and reached significance at follow-up (p = .020), with effect sizes ranging from 0.45 at end of treatment to 0.55 at follow-up. Results of sensitivity analyses using maximum likelihood (ML) imputation and available data (AD) analysis produced relatively consistent results at end of treatment (ML: p = .050; AD: p = .052) and follow-up (ML: p = .006; AD: p = .006). Table 2 presents the percentage of participants who completed the EDE-Q that shifted from a dysfunctional level at baseline to a functional level at end-oftreatment and follow-up (cut-off EDE-Q score: 2.47; Jacobson & Truax, 1991). Although percentages were higher for CBT+ at both end-of-treatment and follow-up (69.6 % and 65.0% vs 52.9% and 45.8% for DBT-BED), these differences were not significant.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw