A Brief Virtual ACT Workshop for Emotional Eating

Emotional eating, as assessed by the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire Emotional Eating Subscale (DEBQ-EE). Participants are asked to rate the frequency with which they engage in particular eating behaviours, on a 5-point Likert-type rating scale from never (1) to very often (5), with higher scores reflecting higher emotional eating. Only the emotional eating subscale of the DEBQ will be assessed and is calculated by averaging the 13 items that assess emotional eating.

Emotional eating, as assessed by the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire Emotional Eating Subscale (DEBQ-EE). Participants are asked to rate the frequency with which they engage in particular eating behaviours, on a 5-point Likert-type rating scale from never (1) to very often (5), with higher scores reflecting higher emotional eating. Only the emotional eating subscale of the DEBQ will be assessed and is calculated by averaging the 13 items that assess emotional eating.

Emotional eating, as assessed by the Dutch Eating Behaviour Questionnaire Emotional Eating Subscale (DEBQ-EE). Participants are asked to rate the frequency with which they engage in particular eating behaviours, on a 5-point Likert-type rating scale from never (1) to very often (5), with higher scores reflecting higher emotional eating. Only the emotional eating subscale of the DEBQ will be assessed and is calculated by averaging the 13 items that assess emotional eating.

Distress tolerance, as assessed by the Distress Tolerance Scale (DTS). Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements aimed at assessing distress tolerance, absorption, appraisal, and regulation from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), with lower scores reflecting lower distress tolerance. Subscale scores are derived by calculating the means of the items that make up each subscale. Total score is calculating by averaging the four subscales.

Distress tolerance, as assessed by the Distress Tolerance Scale (DTS). Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements aimed at assessing distress tolerance, absorption, appraisal, and regulation from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), with lower scores reflecting lower distress tolerance. Subscale scores are derived by calculating the means of the items that make up each subscale. Total score is calculating by averaging the four subscales.

Distress tolerance, as assessed by the Distress Tolerance Scale (DTS). Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which they agree with statements aimed at assessing distress tolerance, absorption, appraisal, and regulation from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree), with lower scores reflecting lower distress tolerance. Subscale scores are derived by calculating the means of the items that make up each subscale. Total score is calculating by averaging the four subscales.

Food craving acceptance and action, as assessed by the Food Craving Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (FAAQ). Items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type rating scale from 1 (very seldom true) to 6 (always true), with higher scores reflecting higher acceptance. Total score is derived by summing all items. Minimum score is 10 and maximum score is 60.

Food craving acceptance and action, as assessed by the Food Craving Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (FAAQ). Items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type rating scale from 1 (very seldom true) to 6 (always true), with higher scores reflecting higher acceptance. Total score is derived by summing all items. Minimum score is 10 and maximum score is 60.

Food craving acceptance and action, as assessed by the Food Craving Acceptance and Action Questionnaire (FAAQ). Items are rated on a 6-point Likert-type rating scale from 1 (very seldom true) to 6 (always true), with higher scores reflecting higher acceptance. Total score is derived by summing all items. Minimum score is 10 and maximum score is 60.

Mindful eating, as assessed by the Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ). It is a 28-item self-report measure that assesses five domains of mindful eating: disinhibition, external cues, awareness, emotional response and distraction. Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which extent they agree with each item from 1 ("never" / "rarely") to 4 ("usually"/ "always"), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of mindful eating. Total score is derived by taking the mean of the five subscales.

Mindful eating, as assessed by the Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ). It is a 28-item self-report measure that assesses five domains of mindful eating: disinhibition, external cues, awareness, emotional response and distraction. Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which extent they agree with each item from 1 ("never" / "rarely") to 4 ("usually"/ "always"), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of mindful eating. Total score is derived by taking the mean of the five subscales.

Mindful eating, as assessed by the Mindful Eating Questionnaire (MEQ). It is a 28-item self-report measure that assesses five domains of mindful eating: disinhibition, external cues, awareness, emotional response and distraction. Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which extent they agree with each item from 1 ("never" / "rarely") to 4 ("usually"/ "always"), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of mindful eating. Total score is derived by taking the mean of the five subscales.

Application of ACT values techniques taught during the workshop, as assessed by items developed by the study's authors. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with a number of value-based statements on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Values score was derived by taking the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting greater value-consistent eating behaviors.

Application of ACT values techniques taught during the workshop, as assessed by items developed by the study's authors. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with a number of value-based statements on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Values score was derived by taking the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting greater value-consistent eating behaviors.

Application of ACT values techniques taught during the workshop, as assessed by items developed by the study's authors. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed with a number of value-based statements on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Values score was derived by taking the mean of the items, with higher scores reflecting greater value-consistent eating behaviors.

As assessed by a self-report item developed by the study's authors. Participants were asked to report the number of times they engaged in emotional eating in the past week.

As assessed by a self-report item developed by the study's authors. Participants were asked to report the number of times they engaged in emotional eating in the past week.

As assessed by a self-report item developed by the study's authors. Participants were asked to report the number of times they engaged in emotional eating in the past week.

As assessed by a single self-report item developed by the study's authors. Participants were asked to report the number of instances in which they began to engage in emotional eating and were able to stop themselves, on a scale from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (very often).

As assessed by a single self-report item developed by the study's authors. Participants were asked to report the number of instances in which they began to engage in emotional eating and were able to stop themselves, on a scale from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (very often).

As assessed by a single self-report item developed by the study's authors. Participants were asked to report the number of instances in which they began to engage in emotional eating and were able to stop themselves, on a scale from 1 (none of the time) to 5 (very often).

Overall number of participants who expressed interest in the workshop over the recruitment period.

Number of participants who received the intervention (i.e. who attended both workshop sessions) out of the number of participants who signed up.

Number of participants who have dropped out or withdrawn from the study at any time point from baseline assessment to last follow-up assessment. Number of dropouts and withdrawals will be kept track of at each study time-point.

Number of participants (out of those who have attended the workshop) who have not completed the follow-up questionnaire(s). The number of participants with missing follow-up data will be kept track of at all follow-up time points (post-treatment, 2-week follow-up, and 3-month follow-up).