Improving programme-led and focused interventions for eating disorders: An experts' consensus statement-A UK perspective.

OBJECTIVE: Eating disorders are associated with significant illness burden and costs, yet access to evidence-based care is limited. Greater use of programme-led and focused interventions that are less resource-intensive might be part of the solution to this demand-capacity mismatch. METHOD: In October 2022, a group of predominantly UK-based clinical and academic researchers, charity representatives and people with lived experience convened to consider ways to improve access to, and efficacy of, programme-led and focused interventions for eating disorders in an attempt to bridge the demand-capacity gap. RESULTS: Several key recommendations were made across areas of research, policy, and practice. Of particular importance is the view that programme-led and focused interventions are suitable for a range of different eating disorder presentations across all ages, providing medical and psychiatric risk are closely monitored. The terminology used for these interventions should be carefully considered, so as not to imply that the treatment is suboptimal. CONCLUSIONS: Programme-led and focused interventions are a viable option to close the demand-capacity gap for eating disorder treatment and are particularly needed for children and young people. Work is urgently needed across sectors to evaluate and implement such interventions as a clinical and research priority.

Assessment of avoidant restrictive food intake disorder, pica and rumination disorder: interview and questionnaire measures.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This article reviews available assessment instruments for three of the feeding and eating disorder diagnostic categories: avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID), pica, and rumination disorder (RD). It includes an overview of the current status of screening tools, questionnaire measures, and diagnostic instruments. RECENT FINDINGS: Screening instruments are available for all three disorders; however, for pica and RD, these typically include single screening items only and do not cover any specific features of these presentations. Only one questionnaire suitable for clinical populations is included, covering ARFID only. Standardized diagnostic interviews are limited to two covering both pica and RD, only one of which provides further clinical information. Of the five diagnostic instruments for ARFID described here, two include diagnostic items as well as allowing more detailed assessment of clinical features. SUMMARY: There are a limited number of assessment measures available for all three disorders, with instruments for ARFID being the greatest in number and widest in terms of scope. A commonly encountered difficulty is that many assessment instruments do not adequately cover diagnostic exclusion criteria, which raises the likelihood of false positive findings. All currently available measures require further study to determine their reliability and validity.