Investigating the utility of the AQ-10 in children and adolescents assessed in an outpatient ARFID clinic.

The high co-occurrence of autism and eating disorders is well established, including for those with Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID). It is therefore important to consider autism and identify possible autism when people present to eating disorder services to ascertain whether further assessment is indicated, to support clinical formulation and to make appropriate adaptations during interventions. This paper explores the utility of a validated autism screening measure, the AQ-10, in a population of children and adolescents who presented to an outpatient eating disorders clinic for an assessment of possible ARFID. Over 19 months, 335 young people were assessed and 246 families with children aged between 4 and 17 years completed one of three versions of the AQ-10 (Child, Adolescent, and Adult), as part of a battery of routinely administered pre-assessment questionnaires. Results indicated that 80.2% (n = 69) of those with an existing autism diagnosis scored above clinical threshold of ≥6 (M = 7.2, SD = 1.9), 43.9% (n = 43) of those queried to be autistic scored above clinical threshold (M = 5.2, SD = 2.5), and 6.5% (n = 4) of non-autistic individuals scored above clinical threshold (M = 2.8, SD = 1.8). Additionally, the AQ-10 satisfactorily discriminated between those with a known autism diagnosis and those who are not autistic across all age groups and sex. We conclude that the AQ-10, alongside a comprehensive clinical assessment and clinical judgment, is a useful screening tool that can support clinicians to identify appropriate onward referrals for autism assessments, aid clinical formulation, and consider appropriate adaptations and reasonable adjustments during ARFID interventions.

Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID)-Looking beyond the eating disorder lens?

Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) was first included as a diagnostic category in 2013, and over the past 10 years has been adopted by the international eating disorder community. While greater awareness of these difficulties has increased identification, demand and enabled advocacy for clinical services, the heterogeneous nature of ARFID poses unique challenges for eating disorder clinicians and researchers. This commentary aims to reflect on some of these challenges, focussing specifically on the risk of viewing ARFID through an eating disorder lens. This includes potential biases in the literature as most recent research has been conducted in specialist child and adolescent eating disorder clinic settings, bringing in to question the generalisability of findings to the broad spectrum of individuals affected by ARFID. We also consider whether viewing ARFID predominantly through an eating disorder lens risks us as a field being blinkered to the range of effective skills our multi-disciplinary feeding colleagues may bring. There are opportunities that may come with the eating disorder field navigating treatment pathways for ARFID, including more joined up working with multi-disciplinary colleagues, the ability to transfer skills used in ARFID treatment to individuals with eating disorder presentations, and most notably an opportunity to provide more effective treatment and service pathways for individuals with ARFID and their families. However, these opportunities will only be realised if eating disorder clinicians and researchers step out of their current silos.

A scoping review of psychological interventions and outcomes for avoidant and restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID).

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review identifies and describes psychological interventions for avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and summarizes how outcomes are measured across such interventions. METHOD: Five databases (Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Web of Science) were searched up to December 22, 2022. Studies were included if they reported on psychological interventions for ARFID. Studies were excluded if participants did not have an ARFID diagnosis and if psychological interventions were not delivered or detailed. RESULTS: Fifty studies met inclusion criteria; almost half were single-case study designs (23 studies) and most studies reported on psychological interventions for children and adolescents with ARFID (42 studies). Behavioral interventions (16 studies), cognitive-behavioral therapy (10 studies), and family therapy (5 studies), or combinations of these therapeutic approaches (19 studies) were delivered to support patients with ARFID. Many studies lacked validated measures, with outcomes most commonly assessed via physical health metrics such as weight. DISCUSSION: This review provides a comprehensive summary of psychological interventions for ARFID since its introduction to the DSM-5. Across a range of psychological interventions and modalities for ARFID, there were common treatment components such as food exposure, psychoeducation, anxiety management, and family involvement. Currently, studies reporting on psychological interventions for ARFID are characterized by small samples and high levels of heterogeneity, including in how outcomes are measured. Based on reviewed studies, we outline suggestions for clinical practice and future research. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE: Avoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is an eating disorder characterized by avoidance or restriction of food due to fear, sensory sensitivities, and/or a lack of interest in food. We reviewed the literature on psychological interventions for ARFID and the outcomes used to measure change. Several psychological interventions have been developed and applied to patients with ARFID. Outcome measurement varies widely and requires further development and greater consensus.

OBJETIVO: Esta revisión de alcance identifica y describe las intervenciones psicológicas para el Trastorno de Evitación y Restricción de la Ingesta de Alimentos (TERIA) y resume cómo se miden los resultados en dichas intervenciones. MÉTODO: Se hicieron búsquedas en cinco bases de datos (Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PsycInfo, Web of Science) hasta el 22 de diciembre de 2022. Se incluyeron los estudios que informaban sobre intervenciones psicológicas para TERIA. Se excluyeron los estudios si los participantes no tenían un diagnóstico de TERIA y si las intervenciones psicológicas no se administraban o detallaban. RESULTADOS: Cincuenta estudios cumplieron los criterios de inclusión; casi la mitad fueron diseños de estudio de caso único (23 estudios) y la mayoría de los estudios informaron sobre intervenciones psicológicas para niños y adolescentes que padecen TERIA (42 estudios). Se administraron intervenciones conductuales (16 estudios), terapia cognitivo-conductual (10 estudios) y terapia familiar (5 estudios), o combinaciones de estos enfoques terapéuticos (19 estudios) para apoyar a los pacientes con TERIA. Muchos estudios carecían de medidas validadas, y los resultados se evaluaron con mayor frecuencia mediante parámetros de salud física como el peso. DISCUSIÓN: Esta revisión proporciona un resumen exhaustivo de las intervenciones psicológicas para el TERIA desde su introducción en el DSM-5. A través de una gama de intervenciones y modalidades psicológicas para el TERIA, hubo componentes de tratamiento comunes como la exposición a los alimentos, la psicoeducación, el manejo de la ansiedad y la participación de la familia. Actualmente, los estudios que informan sobre las intervenciones psicológicas para el TERIA están dominados por muestras pequeñas y altos niveles de heterogeneidad, incluso en la forma en que se miden los resultados. Sobre la base de los estudios revisados, se esbozan sugerencias para la práctica clínica y la investigación futura.

Cancer-related fatigue in teenage and young adult cancer patients: Clinicians' perspectives, practice and challenges.

OBJECTIVE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is a common and distressing symptom experienced by teenage and young adult cancer patients (TYAs). This study aimed to explore clinicians' perspectives, practices and challenges in supporting TYAs with CRF. METHOD: Ten clinicians from a TYA multidisciplinary team (MDT) participated in semi-structured interviews which were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Clinicians perceived CRF as a common, but individual experience for TYAs and framed the broad impact of CRF in the context of TYAs' development. Clinicians' assessment and management of CRF for TYAs varied. Clinicians described a range of challenges affecting their practice in supporting TYAs with CRF, including limited knowledge, difficulties engaging TYAs, inadequate time in consultations and a lack of age-appropriate resources. CONCLUSIONS: Despite clinicians' good insight into TYAs' unique experiences of CRF, the assessment and management of CRF for TYAs are complicated by numerous challenges. The development of evidence-based interventions and guidelines, clear pathways of care, and TYA-friendly resources, measures and programmes, is vital to support clinicians, and TYAs, in managing CRF.