RESUMEN
Introduction: First Episode Rapid Early Intervention for Eating Disorders (FREED) is the leading eating disorder (ED) early intervention model for young people. Research has shown that it reduces the duration of untreated illness, improves clinical outcomes, and has cost savings. However, less is known about the experience of implementing FREED. This study aimed to investigate the views and experiences of adopting, implementing, and sustaining FREED from the perspective of clinical staff. Methods: Seven focus groups were conducted involving 26 clinicians. Thematic analysis was used, with the Non-Adoption, Abandonment and Challenges to Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (The NASSS framework) framework being applied to organise subthemes and determine facilitators and barriers. The NASSS framework was also used to rate the complexity of themes as either simple (straightforward, predictable, few components), complicated (multiple interrelating components), or complex (dynamic, unpredictable, not easily divisible into constituent components). Results: There were 16 subthemes identified under seven broader themes representing each domain of the NASSS framework. Key barriers and areas of complexity included factors related to EDs as an illness (e.g., high acuity and prevalence), and organisational complexity (e.g., staffing shortages, lack of managerial/team support). Key facilitators included positive clinician/adopter attitudes, a supportive national network, and the ability for FREED to be flexible/adaptable over time. Conclusion: The FREED model appears to be desirable to clinical staff. Wider team and managerial support was perceived to be particularly important to its successful implementation, as were the national network and supervision. Key areas of complexity include staffing issues and high ED acuity/prevalence. These barriers to implementation need to be managed and investment continued to expand and improve early intervention for EDs further.
RESUMEN
Eating disorders (EDs) are serious psychiatric illnesses that typically develop during adolescence and emerging adulthood. Early intervention is important for improved outcomes for young people with EDs, yet help-seeking is low and individuals often have a significantly protracted start to treatment, suggesting that early intervention is not well established in the ED field. Previous reviews on facilitators and barriers to early intervention for EDs largely cover perceived barriers related to patient variables and perspectives, whereas clinician-, service-, and healthcare system-related facilitators and barriers are less frequently reviewed. The aim of this review is to synthesize the literature on barriers to and facilitators of early intervention for EDs, regarding patient-, clinician-, service-, and healthcare system-related factors. A narrative review was conducted by searching for relevant peer-reviewed, English-language articles published up until July 2023 on PubMed and PsychINFO. The search was conducted in two steps. First, key search terms were used to identify existing reviews and meta-analyses on facilitators and barriers to early intervention for EDs. Then, additional search terms were added to search for primary and secondary research on patient/family, clinician, service, and healthcare system-related barriers and facilitators. The identified literature shows that, after overcoming intrinsic, motivational barriers (such as self-stigma, denial, and ambivalence), help-seeking individuals may be met with long service waiting lists and limited treatment options. Despite these barriers, there is ongoing research into early intervention in practice, which aims to reach underserved populations and facilitate early intervention despite high service demands and shortages of trained healthcare professionals. Funding for ED research and services has historically been low, and there is also a research-practice gap. This highlights the need for increased consideration of, and funding for early intervention for EDs, to remove barriers as well as facilitate discussions around how to make early intervention programs scalable and sustainable.
RESUMEN
Words presented to the right visual field (RVF) are processed more rapidly than those in the left visual field (LVF), presumably because of more direct links to the language dominant left cerebral hemisphere. This effect is moderated by a word's orthographic neighborhood size (N), with LVF facilitation and RVF inhibition for words with a large N. Across two experiments, we sought to further examine lateralized N effects. Experiment 1 examined how hemispheric dominance for language influenced lateralized N effects, in 140 left-handers using a visual half-field task with bilateral presentation. Neither participants with a right ear advantage on a dichotic listening task nor participants with no right ear advantage showed the expected N effect, making the results ambiguous: it could be that left-handers fail to show N effects, or the effect could be abolished by some procedural aspect. Experiment 2 looked to test these options by testing 56 right-handers who responded to the same stimulus set under the original bilateral presentation condition and under unilateral presentation. N effects were found under unilateral but not bilateral presentation. We had adopted bilateral presentation because it had been recommended as better than unilateral presentation for controlling fixation and visual stimulation; our results indicate that this is not a minor methodological modification: it can dramatically affect lateralized N effects. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
