Cognitive-behavioral therapy in the time of coronavirus: Clinician tips for working with eating disorders via telehealth when face-to-face meetings are not possible.

OBJECTIVE: The coronavirus pandemic has led to a dramatically different way of working for many therapists working with eating disorders, where telehealth has suddenly become the norm. However, many clinicians feel ill equipped to deliver therapy via telehealth, while adhering to evidence-based interventions. This article draws together clinician experiences of the issues that should be attended to, and how to address them within a telehealth framework. METHOD: Seventy clinical colleagues of the authors were emailed and invited to share their concerns online about how to deliver cognitive-behavioral therapy for eating disorders (CBT-ED) via telehealth, and how to adapt clinical practice to deal with the problems that they and others had encountered. After 96 hr, all the suggestions that had been shared by 22 clinicians were collated to provide timely advice for other clinicians. RESULTS: A range of themes emerged from the online discussion. A large proportion were general clinical and practical domains (patient and therapist concerns about telehealth; technical issues in implementing telehealth; changes in the environment), but there were also specific considerations and clinical recommendations about the delivery of CBT-ED methods. DISCUSSION: Through interaction and sharing of ideas, clinicians across the world produced a substantial number of recommendations about how to use telehealth to work with people with eating disorders while remaining on track with evidence-based practice. These are shared to assist clinicians over the period of changed practice.

Dimensions of personality: clinicians' perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To obtain the opinions and preferences of practising clinicians about the clinical utility of personality scales included within 8 alternative dimensional models of personality disorder for inclusion within an official diagnostic nomenclature. METHOD: Psychiatrists (n = 226) and psychologists (n = 164) from 2 continents provided clinical utility ratings on personality scales organized from 8 alternative dimensional models of personality disorder. RESULTS: The psychiatrists and the psychologists supported the inclusion of most of the scales from all 8 of the models that were compared. Normal personality traits were endorsed, although abnormal personality traits generally received higher levels of endorsement. The list of endorsed traits was reduced further by organizing the scales into groups based on redundancy within each of 5 broad domains and then selecting within each group the scale that received the highest rating. CONCLUSIONS: This list appears to represent each domain in a manner that is comprehensive both in its coverage of the respective domain, as well as in representing particular strengths of each of the alternative dimensional models, at least for the stated preferences of psychiatrists and psychologists.