Skip to main content

Table 1 Sample characteristics

From: Comparison of MI-oriented versus CBT-oriented adjunctive treatments: impacts on therapeutic alliance and patient engagement during hospital treatment for an eating disorder

Variables

Total sample (N = 65)

CBT-oriented group (n = 28)

MI-oriented group (n = 37)

Gender

 Female

59 (91%)

25 (89%)

34 (92%)

 Male

4 (6%)

1 (4%)

3 (8%)

 Other

2 (3%)

2 (7%)

0 (0%)

 Mean age in years (SD)

30.80 (13.37)

30.19 (11.78)

31.24 (14.57)

Ethnic group

 White

39 (60%)

19 (68%)

20 (54%)

 Asian

6 (9%)

3 (11%)

3 (8%)

 Other

13 (20%)

4 (14%)

9 (24%)

 Not reported

7 (11%)

2 (7%)

5 (14%)

Marital status

 Single

37 (57%)

16 (57%)

21 (57%)

 Married

12 (18%)

3 (11%)

9 (24%)

 Separated/divorced

7 (11%)

3 (11%)

4 (11%)

 Common-law

4 (6%)

2 (7%)

2 (5%)

 Not reported

5 (8%)

4 (14%)

1 (3%)

ED diagnosis

 Bulimia nervosa

30 (46%)

14 (50%)

16 (43%)

 Anorexia nervosa

12 (18%)

4 (14%)

8 (22%)

 Binge eating disorder

1 (2%)

0 (0%)

1 (3%)

 ARFID

2 (3%)

1 (4%)

1 (3%)

 EDNOS

19 (29%)

8 (29%)

11 (30%)

 Not reported

1 (2%)

1 (4%)

0 (0%)

Previous ED treatment

 None

28 (43%)

13 (46%)

15 (41%)

 Day hospital

17 (26%)

7 (25%)

10 (27%)

 Inpatient

15 (23%)

5 (18%)

10 (27%)

 Current program

2 (3%)

1 (4%)

1 (3%)

 Other

1 (2%)

1 (4%)

0 (0%)

 Not reported

2 (3%)

1 (4%)

1 (3%)

  1. ARFID avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, EDNOS eating disorder not otherwise specified. Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number and may not equal 100%