Search

The COVID-19 pandemic and public health mitigation measures have negatively impacted individuals with eating disorders (ED). We evaluated changes in and predictors of ED symptoms, pandemic-related ED concerns, and anxiety symptoms across the first 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic among individuals with self-reported EDs in the United States (US), Sweden (SE), and the Netherlands (NL).Participants in the US (N = 510), SE (N = 982), and NL (N = 510) completed an online survey assessing ED symptoms (binge eating, restriction, compensatory behaviors, and anxiety about being unable to exercise), general anxiety symptoms, and pandemic-related ED concerns about accessing food, lack of structure and social support, being in a triggering environment, and food and treatment costs. In the US and NL, respondents completed surveys beginning April 2020 and continuing monthly for a year. In SE, respondents completed baseline surveys in May 2020, a six-month follow-up around December 2020, and a 12-month follow-up in May 2021.Three patterns emerged: (1) a curvilinear course with the highest level of symptoms at baseline, declining through November 2020, and increasing through the rest of the year; (2) a linear declining course over time; and (3) a stable course with no changes. Worries about COVID-19 infection, lockdown, concerns about lack of structure and social support, and concerns about accessing food consistent with one's recovery meal plan predicted increases in ED symptoms.ED symptoms tracked with pandemic-related concerns in people with EDs. Conceptualizing predictors of symptoms may inform therapy and public health resources that reduce the impact of pandemics on mental health.Our findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic had negative impacts on people with eating disorders, including amplification of mental health symptoms and stressors around peak periods of infection and COVID-19 restrictions. These findings inform medical providers, policy-makers, and community-based supports about the information and resource needs of this group to ensure efficient dissemination in future public health emergencies and during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

We assessed eating disorder (ED) illness status, symptomatology, treatment access, anxiety, and depression in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic among individuals with a pre-existing ED in the United States (US), the Netherlands (NL), and Sweden (SE).Participants completed online surveys in April-July 2020, at the early stage of the pandemic, and one year later. At one-year follow-up, we added questions addressing retrospective changes in ED symptoms, treatment, and anxiety/depression since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. We present descriptive statistics and assess change in ED symptomatology, treatment, and anxiety/depression among those with an active or lingering ED.Participants (US n = 132; NL n = 219; SE n = 702) were mostly young and female with a history of anorexia nervosa (60% in all three countries). Across countries, respondents reported impact of COVID-19 on ED symptoms at both time points, with improvement in US and NL at one-year follow-up, and stable but less impact on ED symptoms in SE. Furthermore, at one-year follow-up, roughly half of those in treatment reported reduced treatment access and quality, and the majority of the sample reported increased anxiety and depressive mood since the start of the pandemic.Our findings suggest that the self-perceived impact of COVID-19 changed over time but remained concerning even one year after the start of the pandemic. Clinicians, community organizations, and policy makers are encouraged to address potentially changing treatment needs in the face of public health emergency events.Our findings suggest that the impact of COVID-19 on individuals with eating disorders decreased over time but remained concerning even one year after the start of the pandemic and that the impact differed across countries. Clinicians, community organizations, and policy makers are encouraged to incorporate this knowledge to address potentially changing treatment needs in the face of public health emergency events.

Cognitive behaviour therapy-enhanced (CBT-E) is an effective treatment for non-underweight patients with eating disorders. Its efficacy and effectiveness is investigated mostly among transdiagnostic samples and remains unknown for binge eating disorder. The aim of the present study was to assess several treatment outcome predictors and to compare effectiveness of CBT-E among adult out-patients with bulimia nervosa (n=370), binge eating disorder (n=113), and those with a restrictive food pattern diagnosed with other specified feeding and eating disorders (n=139). Effectiveness of CBT-E was assessed in routine clinical practice in a specialised eating disorders centre. Eating disorder pathology was measured with the EDEQ pre- and post-treatment, and at 20 weeks follow-up. Linear mixed model analyses with fixed effect were performed to compare treatment outcome among the eating disorder groups. Several predictors of treatment completion and outcome were examined with a regression analysis. No predictors for drop-out were found, except the diagnosis of bulimia nervosa. Eating disorder pathology decreased among all groups with effect sizes between 1.43 and 1.70 on the EDE-Q total score. There were no differences in remission rates between the three groups at end of treatment or at follow-up. Eating disorder severity at baseline affected treatment response. The results can be generalised to other specialised treatment centres. No subgroup of patients differentially benefited from CBT-E supporting the transdiagnostic perspective for the treatment of eating disorders. Longer-term follow-up data are necessary to measure persistence of treatment benefits. Key learning aims (1) What is the effectiveness of CBT-E among patients suffering from binge eating disorder? (2) Does any subgroup of patients suffering from an eating disorder differentially benefit from CBT-E? (3) What factors predict treatment response?

Eco-concern, the distress experienced relating to climate change, is associated with mental health, yet no study has examined disordered eating related to eco-concern. This study developed and validated a 10-item scale assessing Eating-Related Eco-Concern (EREC). Participants (n = 224) completed the EREC, Climate Change Worry Scale (CCWS), and Eating Disorder Examination-Questionnaire (EDE-Q). Construct validity, convergent validity, and internal consistency were evaluated. Sex differences in EREC were evaluated using t-tests. Associations among the EREC, CCWS, and EDE-Q were evaluated using linear regression models. Sensitivity analyses were conducted in individuals below EDE-Q global score clinical cut-offs. Factor analysis suggested that all items loaded adequately onto one factor. Pearson’s correlation and Bland–Altman analyses suggested strong correlation and acceptable agreement between the EREC and CCWS (r = 0.57), but weak correlation and low agreement with the EDE-Q global score (r = 0.14). The EREC had acceptable internal consistency (α = 0.88). No sex difference was observed in the EREC in the full sample; females had a significantly higher mean score than males in sensitivity analysis. The EREC was significantly positively associated with the CCWS and EDE-Q global and shape concern scores, but not in sensitivity analysis. The EREC is a brief, validated scale that can be useful to screen for eating-related eco-concern.

OBJECTIVE: Many individuals with an eating disorder do not receive appropriate care. Low-threshold interventions could help bridge this treatment gap. The study aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of Featback, a fully automated online self-help intervention, online expert-patient support and their combination. METHOD: A randomized controlled trial with a 12-month follow-up period was conducted. Participants aged 16 or older with at least mild eating disorder symptoms were randomized to four conditions: (1) Featback, a fully automated online self-help intervention, (2) chat or email support from a recovered expert patient, (3) Featback with expert-patient support and (4) a waiting list control condition. The intervention period was 8 weeks and there was a total of six online assessments. The main outcome constituted reduction of eating disorder symptoms over time. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty five participants, of whom 43% had never received eating disorder treatment, were randomized. The three active interventions were superior to a waitlist in reducing eating disorder symptoms (d = -0.38), with no significant difference in effectiveness between the three interventions. Participants in conditions with expert-patient support were more satisfied with the intervention. DISCUSSION: Internet-based self-help, expert-patient support and their combination were effective in reducing eating disorder symptoms compared to a waiting list control condition. Guidance improved satisfaction with the internet intervention but not its effectiveness. Low-threshold interventions such as Featback and expert-patient support can reduce eating disorder symptoms and reach the large group of underserved individuals, complementing existing forms of eating disorder treatment. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Individuals with eating-related problems who received (1) a fully automated internet-based intervention, (2) chat and e-mail support by a recovered individual or (3) their combination, experienced stronger reductions in eating disorder symptoms than those who received (4) usual care. Such brief and easy-access interventions play an important role in reaching individuals who are currently not reached by other forms of treatment. ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EATING DISORDERS vol:55 issue:10 pages:1361-1373 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Objective: The primary aim was assessing the cost-effectiveness of an internet-based self-help program, expert-patient support, and the combination of both compared to a care-as-usual condition. Method: An economic evaluation from a societal perspective was conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. Participants aged 16 or older with at least mild eating disorder symptoms were randomly assigned to four conditions: (1) Featback, an online unguided self-help program, (2) chat or e-mail support from a recovered expert patient, (3) Featback with expert-patient support, and (4) care-as-usual. After a baseline assessment and intervention period of 8 weeks, five online assessments were conducted over 12 months of follow-up. The main result constituted cost-utility acceptability curves with quality-of-life adjusted life years (QALYs) and societal costs over the entire study duration. Results: No significant differences between the conditions were found regarding QALYs, health care costs and societal costs. Nonsignificant differences in QALYs were in favor of the Featback conditions and the lowest societal costs per participant were observed in the Featback only condition (euro16,741) while the highest costs were seen in the care-as-usual condition (euro 28,479). The Featback only condition had the highest probability of being efficient compared to the alternatives for all acceptable willingness-to-pay values. Discussion: Featback, an internet-based unguided self-help intervention, was likely to be efficient compared to Featback with guidance from an expert patient, guidance alone and a care-as-usual condition. Results suggest that scalable interventions such as Featback may reduce health care costs and help individuals with eating disorders that are currently not reached by other forms of treatment. Public significance statement Internet-based interventions for eating disorders might reach individuals in society who currently do not receive appropriate treatment at low costs. Featback, an online automated self-help program for eating disorders, was found to improve quality of life slightly while reducing costs for society, compared to a do-nothing approach. Consequently, implementing internet-based interventions such as Featback likely benefits both individuals suffering from an eating disorder and society as a whole.

BACKGROUND Economic costs of mental disorders for society are huge. Internet-based interventions are often coined as cost-effective alternative to usual care, but evidence is mixed. OBJECTIVE The aim was to review the literature on cost-effectiveness of eHealth interventions for mental disorders compared to usual care and to provide an estimate of the monetary benefits of such interventions compared to usual care. METHODS A systematic review and meta-analysis of (1) randomized controlled trials that (2) included participants with symptoms of mental disorders, (3) investigated a telephone or internet-based intervention, (4) included a control condition in the form of treatment as usual, psychological placebo, waiting list control or bibliotherapy, (5) reported outcomes on both quality of life and costs and (6) were published in English, was conducted. Electronic databases PubMed (including Medline), Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library were searched. Data on risk of bias, quality of the economic evaluation, quality-of-life adjusted life years (QALYs) and costs were extracted from included studies and the incremental net benefit (INB) was calculated and pooled. RESULTS The search yielded 6226 abstracts and 37 studies with 14,946 participants were included. Quality of economic evaluations of included studies was rated to be moderate and risk of bias was high. A random-effects approach was maintained. Analyses suggested internet interventions to be slightly more effective than usual care in terms of QALY gain, Hedges’ g=.052 (95% CI .010; .094, P=.016), and equally expensive, Hedges’ g=.002 (95% CI -.080; 0.84, P=.96). The pooled INB was $255, (95% CI $91; $419, P=.002), favoring eHealth interventions over usual care. Perspective of the economic evaluation and targeted mental disorder moderated results. CONCLUSIONS Findings indicate that cost-effectiveness of e-mental health interventions compared to a care-as-usual approach is likely, but generalizability to new studies is poor given the substantial heterogeneity. This is the first study in the area of mental health to pool cost-effectiveness outcomes in an aggregate-data meta-analysis. CLINICALTRIAL Prospero registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; registration number: CRD42019141659.

PURPOSE\nMETHOD\nRESULTS\nDISCUSSION\nLEVEL OF EVIDENCE\nThe aim of this study was to develop an Arabic version of the EDE-Q and to assess its psychometric properties and utility as a screener in the Saudi population. An additional aim was to establish EDE-Q norms for Saudis.\nEDE-Q data were collected in a convenience sample of the Saudi community (N = 2690), of which a subset was also subjected to the EDE interview (N = 98). Various models for the factor structure were evaluated on their fit by CFA. With ROC analysis, the AUC was calculated to test how well the EDE-Q discriminated between Saudis at high and low risk for eating disorders.\nThe original four factor model of the EDE-Q was not supported. Best fit was found for a three factor model, including the weight/shape concern scale, dietary restraint scale and eating concern scale. The ROC analysis showed that the EDE-Q could accurately discriminate between individuals at high and low risk for an eating disorder according to the EDE interview. Optimal cut off of 2.93 on the global score yielded a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 80%. EDE-Q scores were fairly associated with BMI.\nPsychometric characteristics of the Saudi version of the EDE-Q were satisfactory and results support the discriminant and convergent validity. Severity level of eating disorder pathology can be determined by the EDE-Q global score. Global scores were high compared to what is found in Western community samples, leading to high prevalence estimates for Saudis at high risk for eating disorders.\nNot applicable, empirical psychometric study.