This Mini-Review presents recent research into evidence for psychological treatments for people with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa (SEAN). Two psychological therapies, specialist supportive clinical management (SSCM), and cognitive behavior therapy for anorexia nervosa (CBT-AN) have limited (one randomized controlled study) evidence of efficacy. Both have had adaptations for SEAN, notably with revision of the primary treatment goal of improved quality of life and full weight recovery a secondary goal. A major issue with existing studies is poor definition of SEAN, and the large deficit in research that has used an agreed definition of SEAN. In particular, it may be problematic to extrapolate from studies of people with either severe and/or enduring but not intractable or "resistant" illness. People with longstanding AN who have not received evidence based care should be offered this with an expectation of recovery. Similarly, people with SEAN may be offered care with judicious mitigation of expectations. In the future, trials should include people with SEAN clearly defined. Trials with a subsample of participants likely to have SEAN, if identified at randomisation, are an opportunity for secondary analyses of such participants. This would widen the evidence base for psychological treatments providing hope for people with this devastating illness. Finally, there is an urgent need not only to strengthen our existing knowledge with studies of sufficient power, but also, fundamentally, to derive novel conceptualizations of what "treatment" involves.

No abstract

Addictive eating prevalence is estimated at 15–20% in studied populations, and is associated with concurrent mental health conditions and eating disorders as well as overweight and obesity. However, few evidence-based interventions targeting addictive eating are available. The further development of evidence-based interventions requires assessment of intervention feasibility and efficacy. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, including intervention delivery and program acceptability, of FoodFix; a personality targeted intervention for the treatment of addictive eating behaviours in Australian adults. Participants (n = 52) were randomised to intervention (n = 26) or wait-list control groups (n = 26) and received three personalised telehealth sessions with an Accredited Practising Dietitian over seven weeks. Intervention delivery was assessed by tracking adherence to scheduled timing of intervention sessions. Program acceptability of participants was assessed via an online process evaluation survey and program acceptability of intervention providers was assessed via semi-structured phone interviews. In total, 79% of participants adhered to scheduled timing for session two and 43% for session three, defined as within one week (before/after) of the scheduled date. Further, 21% of participants completed the process evaluation survey (n = 11). The majority of participants were extremely/very satisfied with FoodFix (n = 7, 63%). Intervention providers (n = 2) expressed that they felt adequately trained to deliver the intervention, and that the overall session format, timing, and content of FoodFix was appropriate for participants. These findings highlight the importance of assessing intervention feasibility to further understand intervention efficacy.

Eating disorders are potentially life-threatening mental health disorders that require management by a multidisciplinary team including medical, psychological and dietetic specialties. This review systematically evaluated the available literature to determine the effect of including a dietitian in outpatient eating disorder (ED) treatment, and to contribute to the understanding of a dietitian’s role in ED treatment. Six databases and Google Scholar were searched for articles that compared treatment outcomes for individuals receiving specialist dietetic treatment with outcomes for those receiving any comparative treatment. Studies needed to be controlled trials where outcomes were measured by a validated instrument (PROSPERO CRD42021224126). The searches returned 16,327 articles, of which 11 articles reporting on 10 studies were included. Two studies found that dietetic intervention significantly improved ED psychopathology, and three found that it did not. Three studies reported that dietetic input improved other psychopathological markers, and three reported that it did not. One consistent finding was that dietetic input improved body mass index/weight and nutritional intake, although only two and three studies reported on each outcome, respectively. A variety of instruments were used to measure each outcome type, making direct comparisons between studies difficult. Furthermore, there was no consistent definition of the dietetic components included, with many containing psychological components. Most studies included were also published over 20 years ago and are now out of date. Further research is needed to develop consistent dietetic guidelines and outcome measures; this would help to clearly define the role of each member of the multidisciplinary team, and particularly the role of dietitians, in ED treatment.