Objective: The rate of screening for eating disorders (EDs) by general practitioners (GPs) in primary health care is low. We examined an approach to increase screening and the impact on referrals.Method: Low cost assessment/treatment pathways were established in February 2019 for patients with an ED. Between October 2020 and June 2021 information was sent to GP practices about screening for EDs, along with provision of an online screening tool and training.Results: Of the 44 GP practices invited to participate in the screening initiative, 42 (95.5%) agreed. Only 12 (27%) had referred patients before the initiative, 53 patients over 19 months (2.8/month). Over the 10-month initiative 90 patients were referred and started treatment from 50% of the practices (8.2/month); 73 (81%) had an ED and six had disordered eating but not an ED. Qualitative feedback from GPs suggested they would not screen for a condition if there were no readily identifiable treatment pathway available.Discussion: Results suggest that the three elements of the initiative (provision of assessment and treatment pathways, access to a screening tool, provision of information on screening) increased the likelihood that GPs would use a screening tool, leading to an almost three-fold increase in referrals.Public Significance: An initiative used to translate screening for an eating disorder to treatment in primary health care had three components. First, provision of an easy referral process to assessment as well as treatment. Second, screening tools were made available on computer desktops. Third, information and training provided to GPs was used to support their clinical observation and increase confidence in initiating screening. Adoption of this initiative almost tripled referrals for assessment.

Treatment access remains low for people with eating disorders. In addressing the complexity inherent in this challenge, this article introduces systems thinking and argues that it could provide new insights. Systems thinking views behavior as an emergent property of a system and considers the relationships between technical, organizational, and social components. Several methods used in safety science incorporate this thinking. For example, AcciMap draws focus to the influence of decisions and actions made across hierarchical levels of a system, including those by government, regulatory bodies, management, services, and individuals. By examining the findings of the existing literature on barriers to eating disorder treatment access according to these levels, it is evident that most identified barriers relate to individuals and that further research is needed to consider the influence of high‐level stakeholders. Research using systems thinking should consider the causal networks of influence from government, regulatory, and organizational decisions and actions through to outcomes for clinicians and individuals. The understanding of how barriers operate within specific healthcare systems also warrants investigation. Systems thinking is yet to be formally applied in the area of eating disorders and thus represents an opportunity to inform the development and implementation of more effective, system wide interventions.

Background Many people with eating disorders (EDs) either do not access treatment, access it well after symptoms first start, or drop out of treatment. This study evaluated ways to improve early access to evidence-based interventions for those with EDs in a non-specialist community setting. Methods In an Australian regional community, links were formed between general medical practitioners and treatment providers (psychologists, mental health social workers and dietitians), who received ongoing training, feedback and support. Service users had access to 20–40 subsidised treatment sessions. Data were collected from 143 patients over 18 months. Our outcomes are reported according to the RE-AIM implementation framework: Reach (we measured uptake and treatment completion); Effectiveness (impact on disordered eating cognitions, body mass index, remission, and moderators of effectiveness including illness duration, previous treatment, presence of comorbidities, presence of a normative level of disordered eating, presence of any ED behaviours, weighing in treatment, multidisciplinary case conferencing, number of dietetic sessions); Adoption (drop-out and predictors); Implementation (barriers encountered); Maintenance (subsequent activity designed to embed new practices). Results Treatment was completed by 71%; significant large decreases in eating disorder cognitions were achieved; remission was obtained by 37% (intent-to-treat). Treatment completion was predicted by lower baseline levels of disordered eating, uptake of ≥ 3 dietetic sessions, and ≥ 2 team case conferences. Greater improvement over time was predicted by regular case conferencing and in-session weighing. Conclusions Implementation of this model in a regional community setting produced completion rates and outcomes comparable to those found in specialist clinical trials of ED treatments. Service providers identified care coordination as the most important factor to connect users to services and help navigate barriers to ongoing treatment. Trial Registration: This research was an invited evaluation of a project implemented by the Australian Department of Health. The project did not introduce any new clinical practice but sought to improve access to evidence-based multidisciplinary treatment for people with EDs by removing four known systemic barriers: securing an accurate diagnosis, availability of multidisciplinary treatment, cost of treatment, and intensity of treatment. As such, the project did not require trial registration. Notwithstanding, this evaluation obtained ethics approval (Bellberry Human Research Ethics Committee, Application No: 2018-09-728-FR-1).

No abstract

No abstract