International consensus on patient-centred outcomes in eating disorders.

The effectiveness of mental health care can be improved through coordinated and wide-scale outcome measurement. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement has produced collaborative sets of outcome measures for various mental health conditions, but no universal guideline exists for eating disorders. This Position Paper presents a set of outcomes and measures for eating disorders as determined by 24 international experts from professional and lived experience backgrounds. An adapted Delphi technique was used, and results were assessed through an open review survey. Final recommendations suggest outcomes should be tracked across four domains: eating disorder behaviours and cognitions, physical health, co-occurring mental health conditions, and quality of life and social functioning. Outcomes are collected using three to five patient-reported measures. For children aged between 6 years and 12 years, the measures include the Children's Eating Attitude Test (or, for those with avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, the Eating Disorder in Youth Questionnaire), the KIDSCREEN-10, and the Revised Children's Anxiety and Depression Screener-25. For adolescents aged between 13 years and 17 years, the measures include the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q; or, for avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, the Nine-Item Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder Screener [NIAS]), the two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the two-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-2), the seven-item Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), and the KIDSCREEN-10. For adults older than 18 years, measures include the EDE-Q (or, for avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, the NIAS), the PHQ-2, the PHQ-9, the GAD-2, the GAD-7, the Clinical Impairment Assessment, and the 12-item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. These questionnaires should be supplemented by information on patient characteristics and circumstances (ie, demographic, historical, and clinical factors). International adoption of these guidelines will allow comparison of research and clinical interventions to determine which settings and interventions work best, and for whom.

Setting the top 10 eating disorder research and translation priorities for Australia.

OBJECTIVES: People with eating disorders, as well as their caregivers, experience high symptom burden, reduced quality of life and increased risk of early mortality. A lack of resources, disjointed vision and limited uptake of the evidence have limited the translation and implementation of research into practice. Little is known about what stakeholders (people with a lived experience, caregivers, health care professionals, researchers and policymakers) see as the most important research priorities. This study aimed to identify Australia's top 10 consensus-derived research and translation priorities for eating disorders. METHODS: Participants (n = 606) included people with a lived experience, carers, health care professionals (clinicians) and researchers working in eating disorders. The methodology aligned with the James Lind Alliance priority setting process, which involved oversight by a co-design advisory committee and utilised a national online interim priority setting survey and co-design workshops to identify the top 10 research and translation priorities. RESULTS: The initial national consultations elicited 1210 issues from 480 individuals. From this, 606 participants shortlisted 59 plain language questions in order of personal priority. In total, 16 questions were consistently ranked as important. As a final step, 24 individuals (with equal representation from all 4 stakeholder groups) attended the final prioritisation workshop to co-establish the top 10 research and translation priorities. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the need for people with a lived experience, carers, health professionals and researchers to work collaboratively to develop co-designed research and translation activities that address the key areas of early intervention, prevention, understanding the aetiology of eating disorders and effective treatment of people experiencing eating disorders.

Management of eating disorders for people with higher weight: clinical practice guideline.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of eating disorders is high in people with higher weight. However, despite this, eating disorders experienced by people with higher weight have been consistently under-recognised and under-treated, and there is little to guide clinicians in the management of eating disorders in this population. AIM: The aim of this guideline is to synthesise the current best practice approaches to the management of eating disorders in people with higher weight and make evidence-based clinical practice recommendations. METHODS: The National Eating Disorders Collaboration Steering Committee auspiced a Development Group for a Clinical Practice Guideline for the treatment of eating disorders for people with higher weight. The Development Group followed the 'Guidelines for Guidelines' process outlined by the National Health and Medical Research Council and aim to meet their Standards to be: 1. relevant and useful for decision making; 2. transparent; 3. overseen by a guideline development group; 4. identifying and managing conflicts of interest; 5. focused on health and related outcomes; 6. evidence informed; 7. making actionable recommendations; 8. up-to-date; and, 9. accessible. The development group included people with clinical and/or academic expertise and/or lived experience. The guideline has undergone extensive peer review and consultation over an 18-month period involving reviews by key stakeholders, including experts and organisations with clinical academic and/or lived experience. RECOMMENDATIONS: Twenty-one clinical recommendations are made and graded according to the National Health and Medical Research Council evidence levels. Strong recommendations were supported for psychological treatment as a first-line treatment approach adults (with bulimia nervosa or binge-eating disorder), adolescents and children. Clinical considerations such as weight stigma, interprofessional collaborative practice and cultural considerations are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: This guideline will fill an important gap in the need to better understand and care for people experiencing eating disorders who also have higher weight. This guideline acknowledges deficits in knowledge and consequently the reliance on consensus and lower levels of evidence for many recommendations, and the need for research particularly evaluating weight-neutral and other more recent approaches in this field.

The objective of this project was to develop recommendations and clinical considerations to guide clinicians in the management of people experiencing eating disorders who also have higher weight. A Guideline Development Group was formed containing members with academic and/or clinical expertise and people with a lived experience of eating disorder. The guideline was not only informed by reviews of the scientific literature but also clinical expertise and lived expertise. This guideline has undergone extensive review and consultation over an 18-month period involving reviews by key stakeholders, including experts and organisations with clinical, academic and/or lived expertise. The guideline outlines a set of recommendations for clinical practice including the strong recommendation for psychological treatment to be offered as the first treatment for an eating disorder in people who are of higher weight. Considerations in clinical practice including weight stigma, care by professionals from disparate disciplines, and cultural considerations are also discussed. The Guideline Development Group acknowledges a lack of available research evidence specific to people experiencing an eating disorder who are also of higher weight and consequently some recommendations relied on consensus of group members taking into account the expert reviews. The Group also identified areas where additional research is necessary such as research evaluating weigh-neutral and other more recent approached in the field.

Reach Out and Recover: Intentions to seek treatment in individuals using online support for eating disorders.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore characteristics and treatment-seeking intentions of consumers accessing an online resource for eating disorders support, Reach Out and Recover (ROAR). Factors associated with treatment-seeking intent among visitors to ROAR were also examined. METHOD: Participants were 200 visitors to the website aged 18 to 60 plus. The majority of participants (93.5%) identified as women. Responses to self-report questions assessing treatment-seeking intention, eating disorder symptoms and their impact on health, and attitudes to treatment were collected. RESULTS: Participants experienced a range of eating disorder symptoms, yet the majority (86.0%) was not receiving treatment. Importantly, of those not in treatment, the majority (82.6%) indicated that they planned to get treatment. In addition, more than half of participants (52.9%) downloaded a report to present to their health practitioner to facilitate communication with a health professional. Intention to seek treatment and download of the report were positively associated with motivation to change, confidence to achieve change, greater frequency of binge eating, and greater recognition of the impact of eating disorder symptoms on relationships and well-being but not with stigma or ambivalence. DISCUSSION: Study findings indicated that the ROAR website was accessed by individuals for whom it was designed, namely those experiencing eating disorder symptoms who are not receiving treatment. Encouragingly, participants had strong intentions to seek treatment, and the majority downloaded a report that could be used to facilitate the first step toward treatment. Greater focus on enhancing motivation and confidence to change may further promote treatment-seeking.

Development and psychometric validation of the general practice nurse satisfaction scale.

PURPOSE: To develop an instrument to assess consumer satisfaction with nursing in general practice to provide feedback to nurses about consumers' perceptions of their performance. DESIGN: Prospective psychometric instrument validation study. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to generate items for an instrument to measure consumer satisfaction with nursing in general practice. Face and content validity were evaluated by an expert panel, which had extensive experience in general practice nursing and research. Included in the questionnaire battery was the 27-item General Practice Nurse Satisfaction (GPNS) scale, as well as demographic and health status items. This survey was distributed to 739 consumers following intervention administered by a practice nurse in 16 general practices across metropolitan, rural, and regional Australia. Participants had the option of completing the survey online or receiving a hard copy of the survey form at the time of their visit. These data were collected between June and August 2009. FINDINGS: Satisfaction data from 739 consumers were collected following their consultation with a general practice nurse. From the initial 27-item GPNS scale, a 21-item instrument was developed. Two factors, "confidence and credibility" and "interpersonal and communication" were extracted using principal axis factoring and varimax rotation. These two factors explained 71.9% of the variance. Cronbach's α was 0.97. CONCLUSIONS: The GPNS scale has demonstrated acceptable psychometric properties and can be used both in research and clinical practice for evaluating consumer satisfaction with general practice nurses. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Assessing consumer satisfaction is important for developing and evaluating nursing roles. The GPNS scale is a valid and reliable tool that can be utilized to assess consumer satisfaction with general practice nurses and can assist in performance management and improving the quality of nursing services.

Validation of the Professional Practice Environment Scale in Australian general practice.

PURPOSE: To validate the Professional Practice Environment Scale (PPE) in Australian general practice. METHODS: The PPE was modified slightly for appropriateness for the practice setting and administered to a sample of 342 Australian general practice nurses via an online survey tool. The factor structure of the 38-item PPE was examined using principal components analysis with Varimax rotation. FINDINGS: An eight-factor solution accounted for 71.6% of the variance. Low factor loading (<0.3) or cross-component loadings were detected in eight items. A comparison of Cronbach's alpha values demonstrated little change in the deletion of eight items from four of the eight related components. CONCLUSIONS: Findings demonstrated that a 30-item version of the PPE was reliable and valid for use to assess the professional practice environment of nurses working in Australian general practice. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A tool to measure the professional practice environment in general practice is important as it will assist in monitoring the impact of the work environment on the recruitment, retention, and satisfaction of nurses in this setting.