Evidence Hub

Utilising cognitive bias modification to remedy appearance and self-worth biases in eating disorder psychopathology: A systematic review

Matheson E, Wade TD, Yiend J

Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry, 2019

7 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study systematically reviewed the impact of Cognitive Bias Modification (CBM) on biases related to attention (CBM-A) and interpretation (CBM-I) for appearance and self-worth stimuli and the subsequent impact on eating disorder (ED) psychopathology.

METHOD: The current review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), with 12 studies meeting inclusion criteria (CBM-A n = 5; CBM-I n = 7).

RESULTS: The literature provides preliminary support for CBM-A and CBM-I efficacy in eliciting bias change in varying degrees of psychopathology (Cohen's d ranging between -1.67 and 1.34; 9 studies reflected improved bias, and 3 reflected no change or did not assess), while highlighting the less robust effects associated with improving ED psychopathology (d ranging between -1.30 and 0.61; 5 studies reflected symptom improvement, and 7 reflected no change or did not assess).

LIMITATIONS: The review only considered peer reviewed research and did not report on the findings of unpublished data; thus, the current findings may not provide an accurate representation of CBM in EDs.

CONCLUSIONS: The current findings highlight the potential of CBM as an adjunct intervention for EDs; however the limited number of investigations and high degree of heterogeneity across the included studies impedes on the generalisability of the findings.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 7 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free