Objective

To examine the predictive value of end of treatment (EOT) outcomes for longer term recovery status.

Method

We used signal detection analysis to identify the best predictors of recovery based on outcome at EOT using five different eating disorder samples from randomized clinical treatment trials. We utilized a transdiagnostic definition of recovery that included normalization of weight and eating related psychopathology.

Results

Achieving a body weight of 95.2% of expected body weight by EOT is the best predictor of recovery for adolescents with anorexia nervosa (AN). For adults with AN, the most efficient predictor of weight recovery (BMI > 19) was weight gain to greater than 85.8% of ideal body weight. In addition, for adults with AN, the most efficient predictor of psychological recovery was achievement of an eating disorder examination (EDE) weight concerns score below 1.8. The best predictor of recovery for adults with Bulimia Nervosa (BN) was a frequency of compensatory behaviors less than two times a month. For adolescents with BN, abstinence from purging and reduction in the EDE restraint score of more than 3.4 from baseline to EOT were good predictors of recovery. For adults with binge eating disorder, reduction of the Global EDE score to within the normal range (<1.58) was the best predictor of recovery.

Discussion

The relationship between EOT response and recovery remains understudied. Utilizing a transdiagnostic definition of recovery, no uniform predictors were identified across all eating disorder diagnostic groups.

BACKGROUND: Family based treatment (FBT) has been empirically investigated in adolescents between the ages of 12 and 19 years of age. Although parental control over eating symptoms and the weight gain process are temporary and necessary due to serious medical complications, FBT may be developmentally inappropriate when working with older adolescents. To date, there are no studies identifying how the principles of this model are used differentially across different stages of adolescence. This study aimed to identify how clinicians informed by FBT employ this model with transition age youth (TAY) (16-21) with an eating disorder. METHODS: Using content analysis, seven individual interviews and six focus groups were conducted with 34 clinicians from specialized Eating Disorder Treatment programs across Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: Participants consistently reported modifying FBT to increase its developmental appropriateness with TAY in the following ways: working more collaboratively with the patient, increasing individual time spent with the patient prior to the family meeting, providing greater opportunities for the individual to practice eating without parental support and introducing relapse prevention in the latter phase of the treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In all adaptations of the model, participants in focus groups and individual interviews cited the age of the individual with the eating disorder, their level of autonomy and independence in all areas of their lives, and their pending transfer of care from paediatric to adult eating disorder programs as main factors that influenced the modification of FBT with TAY. While adaptations were made across all three phases of FBT, adherence to the model progressively declined over the course of treatment with adaptations increasing significantly in the later phases. Future research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of an adapted version of FBT with TAY.