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.

Cost-effectiveness of specialist eating disorders services for children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa: a national surveillance study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests specialist eating disorders services for children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa have the potential to improve outcomes and reduce costs through reduced hospital admissions. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of assessment and diagnosis in community-based specialist child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) compared to generic CAMHS for children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa. METHOD: Observational, surveillance study of children and adolescents aged 8 to 17, in contact with community-based CAMHS in the UK or Republic of Ireland for a first episode of anorexia nervosa. Data were reported by clinicians at baseline, 6 and 12-months follow-up. Outcomes included the Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) and percentage of median expected body mass for age and sex (%mBMI). Service use data included paediatric and psychiatric inpatient admissions, outpatient and day-patient attendances. A joint distribution of incremental mean costs and effects for each group was generated using bootstrapping to explore the probability that each service is the optimal choice, subject to a range of values a decision-maker might be willing to pay for outcome improvements. Uncertainty was explored using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-eight children and adolescents met inclusion criteria. At 12-month follow-up, there were no significant differences in total costs or outcomes between specialist eating disorders services and generic CAMHS. However, adjustment for pre-specified baseline covariates resulted in observed differences favouring specialist services, due to significantly poorer clinical status of the specialist group at baseline. Cost-effectiveness analysis using CGAS suggests that the probability of assessment in a specialist service being cost-effective compared to generic CAMHS ranges from 90 to 50%, dependent on willingness to pay for improvements in outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment in a specialist eating disorders service for children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa may have a higher probability of being cost-effective than assessment in generic CAMHS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN12676087 . Date of registration 07/01/2014.

Specialist eating disorders services may improve outcomes and reduce hospitalisations for children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa. Reductions in hospitalisation could save money for the NHS and are better for young people because hospitalisation disrupts their home life, social life and education. This study evaluated outcomes and costs of specialist eating disorders services compared to general child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) for children and adolescents with anorexia nervosa.Children and adolescents were identified by contacting child and adolescent psychiatrists in the UK and Ireland and asking them to report any new cases of anorexia nervosa. These psychiatrists identified 298 young people aged 8 to 17 with an anorexia nervosa diagnosis for the first time. The psychiatrists provided information on the health services these young people used and how they were doing when they were first diagnosed and 6 months and 1 year later.Children and adolescents in specialist services were more severely ill than those in CAMHS when they were first diagnosed. Despite this, care for the young people in specialist services cost about the same as for those diagnosed in CAMHS, and their outcomes after 1 year were similar. This work showed that specialist services may be better value for money than CAMHS.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people seen after second or subsequent episodes of self-harm: the Self-Harm Intervention - Family Therapy (SHIFT) trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition rates high. There is limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of family therapy (FT) compared with treatment as usual (TAU). DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial of FT compared with TAU. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were blind to allocation. SETTING: Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) across three English regions. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice presenting to CAMHS following self-harm. INTERVENTIONS: Eight hundred and thirty-two participants were randomised to manualised FT delivered by trained and supervised family therapists (n = 415) or to usual care offered by local CAMHS following self-harm (n = 417). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Out of 832 young people, 212 (26.6%) experienced a primary outcome event: 118 out of 415 (28.4%) randomised to FT and 103 out of 417 (24.7%) randomised to TAU. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in repetition rates between groups (the hazard ratio for FT compared with TAU was 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.49; p = 0.3349). FT was not found to be cost-effective when compared with TAU in the base case and most sensitivity analyses. FT was dominated (less effective and more expensive) in the complete case. However, when young people's and caregivers' quality-adjusted life-year gains were combined, FT incurred higher costs and resulted in better health outcomes than TAU within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness range. Significant interactions with treatment, indicating moderation, were detected for the unemotional subscale on the young person-reported Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits (p = 0.0104) and the affective involvement subscale on the caregiver-reported McMaster Family Assessment Device (p = 0.0338). Caregivers and young people in the FT arm reported a range of significantly better outcomes on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Self-reported suicidal ideation was significantly lower in the FT arm at 12 months but the same in both groups at 18 months. No significant unexpected adverse events or side effects were reported, with similar rates of expected adverse events across trial arms. CONCLUSIONS: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, who have self-harmed at least once before, FT confers no benefits over TAU in reducing self-harm repetition rates. There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of FT in reducing self-harm when caregivers reported poor family functioning. When the young person themselves reported difficulty expressing emotion, FT did not seem as effective as TAU. There was no evidence that FT is cost-effective when only the health benefits to participants were considered but there was a suggestion that FT may be cost-effective if health benefits to caregivers are taken into account. FT had a significant, positive impact on general emotional and behavioural problems at 12 and 18 months. LIMITATIONS: There was significant loss to follow-up for secondary outcomes and health economic analyses; the primary outcome misses those who do not attend hospital following self-harm; and the numbers receiving formal FT in the TAU arm were higher than expected. FUTURE WORK: Evaluation of interventions targeted at subgroups of those who self-harm, longer-term follow-up and methods for evaluating health benefits for family groups rather than for individuals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59793150. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Effectiveness of systemic family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people after self-harm: a pragmatic, phase 3, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm in adolescents is common and repetition occurs in a high proportion of these cases. Scarce evidence exists for effectiveness of interventions to reduce self-harm. METHODS: This pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual was done at 40 UK Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) centres. We recruited young people aged 11-17 years who had self-harmed at least twice and presented to CAMHS after self-harm. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive manualised family therapy delivered by trained and supervised family therapists or treatment as usual by local CAMHS. Participants and therapists were aware of treatment allocation; researchers were masked. The primary outcome was hospital attendance for repetition of self-harm in the 18 months after group assignment. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN59793150. FINDINGS: Between Nov 23, 2009, and Dec 31, 2013, 3554 young people were screened and 832 eligible young people consented to participation and were randomly assigned to receive family therapy (n=415) or treatment as usual (n=417). Primary outcome data were available for 795 (96%) participants. Numbers of hospital attendances for repeat self-harm events were not significantly different between the groups (118 [28%] in the family therapy group vs 103 [25%] in the treatment as usual group; hazard ratio 1·14 [95% CI 0·87-1·49] p=0·33). Similar numbers of adverse events occurred in both groups (787 in the family therapy group vs 847 in the treatment as usual group). INTERPRETATION: For adolescents referred to CAMHS after self-harm, having self-harmed at least once before, our family therapy intervention conferred no benefits over treatment as usual in reducing subsequent hospital attendance for self-harm. Clinicians are therefore still unable to recommend a clear, evidence-based intervention to reduce repeated self-harm in adolescents. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour (START): a pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent antisocial behaviour is a major health and social problem. Studies in the USA have shown that multisystemic therapy reduces such behaviour and the number of criminal offences committed by this group. However, findings outside the USA are equivocal. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour. METHODS: We did an 18 month, multisite, pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial in England. Eligible participants aged 11-17 years with moderate-to-severe antisocial behaviour had at least three severity criteria indicating past difficulties across several settings and one of five general inclusion criteria for antisocial behaviour. We randomly assigned families (1:1) using stochastic minimisation, stratifying for treatment centre, sex, age at enrolment to study, and age at onset of antisocial behaviour, to receive either management as usual or 3-5 months of multisystemic therapy followed by management as usual. Research assistants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation; the participants could not be masked. The primary outcome was out-of-home placement at 18 months. The primary analysis included all randomised participants for whom data were available. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN77132214. Follow-up of the trial is still ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 4, 2010, and Sept 1, 2012, 1076 families were referred to nine multi-agency panels, 684 of whom were assigned to management as usual (n=342) or multisystemic therapy followed by management as usual (n=342). At 18 months, the proportion of participants in out-of-home placement was not significantly different between the groups (13% [43/340] in the multisystemic therapy group vs 11% [36/335] in the management-as-usual group; odds ratio 1·25, 95% CI 0·77-2·05; p=0·37). INTERPRETATION: The findings do not support that multisystemic therapy should be used over management as usual as the intervention of choice for adolescents with moderate-to-severe antisocial behaviour. FUNDING: Department for Children, Schools and Families, Department of Health.

Self-Harm Intervention: Family Therapy (SHIFT), a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of family therapy versus treatment as usual for young people seen after a second or subsequent episode of self-harm.

BACKGROUND: Self-harm is common in the community with a lifetime prevalence of 13 %. It is associated with an elevated risk of overall mortality and suicide. People who harm themselves are high users of public services. Estimates of the 1-year risk of repetition vary between 5 and 15 % per year. Currently, limited evidence exists on the effectiveness of clinical interventions for young people who engage in self-harm. Recent reviews have failed to demonstrate any effect on reducing repetition of self-harm among adolescents receiving a range of treatment approaches. Family factors are particularly important risk factors associated with fatal and non-fatal self-harm among children and adolescents. Family therapy focuses on the relationships, roles and communication patterns between family members, but there have been relatively few studies of specifically family-focused interventions with this population. The Self-Harm Intervention: Family Therapy (SHIFT) Trial was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (grant no. 07/33/01) following a commissioned call for this research. METHODS/DESIGN: SHIFT is a pragmatic, phase III, multicentre, individually randomised, controlled trial comparing Family Therapy (FT) with treatment as usual (TAU) for adolescents aged 11 to 17 who have engaged in at least two episodes of self-harm. Both therapeutic interventions were delivered within the National Health Service (NHS) Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) in England. Participants and therapists were, of necessity, aware of treatment allocation, but the researchers were blind to the allocations to allow unbiased collection of follow-up data. Primary outcome data (repetition of self-harm leading to hospital attendance 18 months post-randomisation) were collected from the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC), augmented by directed searches of medical records at Acute Trusts. Secondary outcome data (including suicidal intent, depression, hopelessness and health economics) were collected at 12 and 18 months post-randomisation via researcher-participant interviews and by post at 3 and 6 months. DISCUSSION: SHIFT will provide a well-powered evaluation of the clinical and cost effectiveness of Family Therapy for young people who have self-harmed on more than one occasion. The study will be reported in 2016, and the results will inform clinical practice thereafter. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN59793150 . 26 January 2009.

Short-term intensive family therapy for adolescent eating disorders: 30-month outcome.

Family therapy approaches have generated impressive empirical evidence in the treatment of adolescent eating disorders (EDs). However, the paucity of specialist treatment providers limits treatment uptake; therefore, our group developed the intensive family therapy (IFT)-a 5-day treatment based on the principles of family-based therapy for EDs. We retrospectively examined the long-term efficacy of IFT in both single-family (S-IFT) and multi-family (M-IFT) settings evaluating 74 eating disordered adolescents who underwent IFT at the University of California, San Diego, between 2006 and 2013. Full remission was defined as normal weight (≥ 95% of expected for sex, age, and height), Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) global score within 1 SD of norms, and absence of binge-purging behaviours. Partial remission was defined as weight ≥ 85% of expected or ≥ 95% but with elevated EDE-Q global score and presence of binge-purging symptoms (<1/week). Over a mean follow-up period of 30 months, 87.8% of participants achieved either full (60.8%) or partial remission (27%), while 12.2% reported a poor outcome, with both S-IFT and M-IFT showing comparable outcomes. Short-term, intensive treatments may be cost-effective and clinically useful where access to regular specialist treatment is limited.

Comparison of specialist and nonspecialist care pathways for adolescents with anorexia nervosa and related eating disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the role of specialist outpatient eating disorders services and investigate how direct access to these affects rates of referral, admissions for inpatient treatment, and continuity of care. METHOD: Services beyond primary care in Greater London retrospectively identified adolescents who presented with an eating disorder over a 2-year period. Data concerning service use were collected from clinical casenotes. RESULTS: In areas where specialist outpatient services were available, 2-3 times more cases were identified than in areas without such services. Where initial outpatient treatment was in specialist rather than nonspecialist services, there was a significantly lower rate of admission for inpatient treatment and considerably higher consistency of care. DISCUSSION: Developing specialist outpatient services with direct access from primary care is likely to lead to improvements in treatment and reduce overall costs.

Do adolescents with eating disorder not otherwise specified or full-syndrome bulimia nervosa differ in clinical severity, comorbidity, risk factors, treatment outcome or cost?

OBJECTIVE: We wanted to know whether adolescents with eating disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS) differ from those with bulimia nervosa (BN) in clinical features, comorbidity, risk factors, treatment outcome or cost. METHOD: Adolescents with EDNOS (n = 24) or BN (n = 61) took part in a trial of family therapy versus guided self-care. At baseline, eating disorder symptoms, risk factors, and costs were assessed by interview. Patients were reinterviewed at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Compared with EDNOS, BN patients binged, vomited and purged significantly more, and were more preoccupied with food. Those with EDNOS had more depression and had more current and childhood obsessive-compulsive disorder. 66.6% of EDNOS versus 27.8% of BN patients were abstinent from bingeing and vomiting at 1 year. Diagnosis did not moderate treatment outcome. Costs did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: EDNOS in adolescents is not trivial. It has milder eating disorder symptoms but more comorbidity than BN.

Diagnosing eating disorders in adolescents: a comparison of the eating disorder examination and the development and well-being assessment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic properties of the Eating Disorder Examination (EDE) and the online version of the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA). METHOD: Fifty-Seven adolescents (mean age 15.7 years) who attended consecutive assessments at a specialist eating disorders clinic completed the DAWBA, the EDE, and a standard clinical assessment with a multidisciplinary team. Cohen's Kappas were used to make pairwise comparisons between the diagnoses generated by the three assessments. RESULTS: Participants had anorexia nervosa (n = 30), eating disorders NOS (n = 21) or no eating disorder (n = 6) according to the clinical diagnosis. Agreement between the clinical and DAWBA diagnoses was moderate (kappa = 0.59), agreement between the DAWBA and EDE diagnoses was fair (kappa = 0.21), and agreement between the clinical and EDE diagnoses was poor (kappa = 0.10). The EDE did not identify an eating disorder in 20 participants (35% of the sample) who were clinically assessed as cases. CONCLUSION: Computerized measures using multiple informants may be more suitable for assessing clinical samples of adolescents with anorexia nervosa or eating disorders NOS than individual interviews with young people.

A randomized controlled trial of family therapy and cognitive behavior therapy guided self-care for adolescents with bulimia nervosa and related disorders.

OBJECTIVE: To date no trial has focused on the treatment of adolescents with bulimia nervosa. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of family therapy and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) guided self-care in adolescents with bulimia nervosa or eating disorder not otherwise specified. METHOD: Eighty-five adolescents with bulimia nervosa or eating disorder not otherwise specified were recruited from eating disorder services in the United Kingdom. Participants were randomly assigned to family therapy for bulimia nervosa or individual CBT guided self-care supported by a health professional. The primary outcome measures were abstinence from binge-eating and vomiting, as assessed by interview at end of treatment (6 months) and again at 12 months. Secondary outcome measures included other bulimic symptoms and cost of care. RESULTS: Of the 85 study participants, 41 were assigned to family therapy and 44 to CBT guided self-care. At 6 months, bingeing had undergone a significantly greater reduction in the guided self-care group than in the family therapy group; however, this difference disappeared at 12 months. There were no other differences between groups in behavioral or attitudinal eating disorder symptoms. The direct cost of treatment was lower for guided self-care than for family therapy. The two treatments did not differ in other cost categories. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with family therapy, CBT guided self-care has the slight advantage of offering a more rapid reduction of bingeing, lower cost, and greater acceptability for adolescents with bulimia or eating disorder not otherwise specified.

Predictors of mental health problems and negative caregiving experiences in carers of adolescents with bulimia nervosa.

OBJECTIVE: This exploratory study focuses on the mental health (MH) and caregiving experience of carers of adolescents with Bulimia Nervosa (BN)/Eating Disorder not otherwise specified (EDNOS), aiming to determine: levels of MH problems in carers and if a negative experience of caregiving predicts carer MH status and which factors predict a negative experience of caregiving. METHOD: Hundred and twelve carers and 68 adolescents with BN/EDNOS completed self-report measures (General Health Questionnaire, Experience of Caregiving Inventory, Level of Expressed Emotion, Self-report Family Inventory, Inventory of Interpersonal Problems). RESULTS: Over half of the carers reported some MH problems and a minority (5.4%) were experiencing considerable difficulties. A negative experience of caregiving predicted carer MH status. Higher weekly contact hours and patient ratings of expressed emotion (EE) predicted a negative experience of caregiving. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions focusing on reducing EE and contact hours could prove beneficial for both patient and caregiver outcomes.