Bethan Dalton

This article consists of a citation of a published article describing research funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme under project number 17/123/03, and is provided as as part of the complete record of research outputs for this project. The original publication is available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-021-00528-z Background: Admissions to intensive treatment (i.e., inpatient [IP] and/or day patient [DP]) for individuals with severe anorexia nervosa (AN) are common. Growing literature indicates potential risks and benefits of each intensive treatment approach; however, existing research has focused on patient and carer perspectives of these treatments. Also, there is scant empirical evidence available for guiding the parameters of intensive treatments for AN. We therefore explored clinicians’ perspectives and experience of supporting adults with severe AN in intensive settings. Methods: We conducted twenty one semi-structured interviews with clinicians who deliver intensive treatments (i.e., IP and/or DP) for individuals with severe AN across four specialist Eating Disorder Services in the United Kingdom between May 2020 and June 2021. We asked clinicians about their views and experiences of supporting individuals with severe AN in intensive treatment settings and the challenges and opportunities associated with IP and DP treatment. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis supported by NVivo software. Results: Five broad and interrelated themes were identified: (1) Intensive Support; (2) The Severity of Patients’ Illnesses; (3) Hope and Recovery; (4) Which Treatment When; (5) Limited Resources; and (6) Carer Burden. We identified various similarities between the two intensive treatment approaches, including the value of intensive and multidisciplinary support and carer involvement, and the challenge of managing complex and unique needs in resource-limited intensive settings. We also found differences in the relationship of treatment to patients’ home environments, the necessity of patient motivation, and the management of risk. Conclusions: Both intensive treatment settings are valued by clinicians; however, there are unique challenges and opportunities for supporting individuals with severe AN within each. Our findings suggest DP treatment may be used as an alternative to IP treatment for individuals with severe AN. However, clear questions remain over which intensive treatment setting is best suited to which patient when and should be the focus of future research. Funding: This publication was funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme as a part of award number 17/123/03. This article reports on one component of the research award A Randomized Controlled Multi-Centre Open-Label Parallel Group Non-Inferiority Trial of the Clinical Effectiveness, Acceptability and Cost-Effectiveness of a “Stepping into Day Treatment Approach” versus Inpatient Treatment as Usual for Anorexia Nervosa in Adult Specialist Eating Disorder Services. For more information about this research please view the award page [https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/17/123/03] DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-021-00528-z

This article consists of a citation of a published article describing research funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme under project number 17/123/03, and is provided as as part of the complete record of research outputs for this project. The original publication is available at: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-022-00555-4 Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly affected intensive treatment settings (i.e., inpatient [IP] and day patient [DP]) in specialist eating disorder services. However, the impact on clinicians working in these services is largely unknown. We therefore explored the perspectives of those supporting individuals with severe anorexia nervosa (AN) in intensive treatment settings during the pandemic. Methods: Between May 2020 and June 2021, we interviewed clinicians (n = 21) who delivered IP and/or DP treatment to patients with severe AN in four specialist eating disorder services in the United Kingdom. Data relating to experiences during COVID-19 were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Results: We identified six themes: Disruptions to Routine Treatment; Introduction of Virtual Treatment; Separation from Treatment, Others and the World; Impact on Recovery; Impact on Staff; and Pressure on Referral Pathways. COVID-19 posed significant challenges to IP and DP services: forcing closures, operating with restrictions and virtual treatment, and impacting delivery of essential treatment components, referral pathways, clinician wellbeing, risk management, and patient isolation and recovery trajectories. Opportunities arose, in particular in DP services offering virtual support. Conclusions: COVID-19 challenged the continuation of multidisciplinary treatment. The findings underline the necessity for medical, psychological, practical, and nutritional support, as well as carer involvement and fostering social connections to remain at the forefront of intensive treatment for severe AN. They also emphasise the uncertainty surrounding which intensive treatment may be best suited to which patient when, particularly within the context of virtual DP support. Funding: This publication was funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme as a part of award number 17/123/03. This article reports on one component of the research award A Randomized Controlled Multi-Centre Open-Label Parallel Group Non-Inferiority Trial of the Clinical Effectiveness, Acceptability and Cost-Effectiveness of a “Stepping into Day Treatment Approach” versus Inpatient Treatment as Usual for Anorexia Nervosa in Adult Specialist Eating Disorder Services. For more information about this research please view the award page [https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/17/123/03] DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-022-00555-4

This article consists of a citation of a published article describing research funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme under project number 17/123/03, and is provided as as part of the complete record of research outputs for this project. The original publication is available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2975 Objective: The DAISIES trial, comparing inpatient and stepped-care day patient treatment for adults with severe anorexia nervosa was prematurely terminated in March 2022 due to poor recruitment. This qualitative study seeks to understand the difficulties faced during the trial by investigating stakeholders’ views on and experiences of its implementation. Method: Semi-structured interview and focus group transcripts, and trial management and oversight group meeting minutes from May 2020-June 2022 were analysed using thematic analysis. Participants were 47 clinicians and co-investigators involved with the DAISIES trial. The Non-Adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework was applied to the interpretive themes to classify barriers and facilitators to implementation. Results: Five themes were identified: incompatible participation interests; changing standard practice; concerns around clinical management; systemic capacity and capability issues; and Covid-19 disrupting implementation. Applying the NASSS framework indicated the greatest implementation challenges to arise with the adopters (e.g. patients, clinicians), the organisational systems (e.g. service capacity), and the wider socio-political context (e.g. Covid-19 closing services). Conclusions: Our findings emphasise the top-down impact of systemic-level research implementation challenges. The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic accentuated pre-existing organisational barriers to trial implementation within intensive eating disorder services, further limiting the capacity for research. Funding: This publication was funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme as a part of award number 17/123/03. This article reports on one component of the research award A Randomised Controlled Multi-Centre Open-Label Parallel Group Non-Inferiority Trial of the Clinical Effectiveness, Acceptability and Cost-Effectiveness of a ‘Stepping into Day Treatment’ Approach versus Inpatient Treatment as Usual for Anorexia Nervosa in Adult Specialist Eating Disorder Services. For more information about this research please view the award page [https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/17/123/03] DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2975

This article consists of a citation of a published article describing research funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme under project number 17/123/03, and is provided as as part of the complete record of research outputs for this project. The original publication is available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.3058 Objective: The relative merits of inpatient or day-treatment for adults with anorexia nervosa (AN) are unknown. The DAISIES trial aimed to establish the non-inferiority of a stepped-care day patient treatment (DPT) approach versus inpatient treatment as usual (IP-TAU) for improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months in adults with AN. The trial was terminated due to poor recruitment. This paper presents outcomes and investigates the reasons behind the trial's failure. Method: Fifteen patients with AN (of 53 approached) participated and were followed-up to 6 or 12 months. Summary statistics were calculated due to low sample size, and qualitative data concerning treatment experiences were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: At baseline, participants in both trial arms rated stepped-care DPT as more acceptable. At 12 months, participants' BMIs had increased in both trial arms. Qualitative analysis highlighted valued and challenging aspects of care across settings. Only 6/12 sites opened for recruitment. Among patients approached, the most common reason for declining participation was their treatment preference (n = 12/38). Conclusions: No conclusions can be drawn concerning the effectiveness of IP-TAU and stepped-care DPT, but the latter was perceived more positively. Patient-related, service-related and systemic factors (COVID-19) contributed to the trial's failure. Lessons learnt can inform future studies. Funding: This publication was funded by the Health Technology Assessment programme as a part of award number 17/123/03. This article reports on one component of the research award A Randomised Controlled Multi-Centre Open-Label Parallel Group Non-Inferiority Trial of the Clinical Effectiveness, Acceptability and Cost-Effectiveness of a ‘Stepping into Day Treatment’ Approach versus Inpatient Treatment as Usual for Anorexia Nervosa in Adult Specialist Eating Disorder Services. For more information about this research please view the award page [https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/17/123/03] DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.3058

Background: A substantial proportion of anorexia nervosa patients require intensive treatments, commonly inpatient or day-patient treatment. The relative merits of these treatments for adults with anorexia nervosa are unknown. Therefore, a trial investigating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inpatient treatment-as-usual versus a stepped-care day-patient approach in adults with anorexia nervosa (DAISIES) was commissioned. This trial terminated prematurely due to poor recruitment, mainly resulting from COVID-19’s impact on service provision. Objective: We describe the rationale, methods and available outcomes of the DAISIES trial. Reasons behind the trial’s failure and implications for future research are investigated. Design: A two-arm multicentre open-label parallel-group non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, evaluating the effectiveness, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of two intensive treatments for adults with severe anorexia nervosa. Setting: Specialist eating-disorder services in the United Kingdom with inpatient and/or day-patient treatment facilities. Participants: Adults (age 17 +) with severe anorexia nervosa (body mass index ≤ 16 kg/m²) requiring intensive treatment and (optionally) their carers. Intended sample size: 386. Interventions: Inpatient treatment-as-usual and a stepped-care day-patient treatment approach (with the option of initial inpatient treatment for medical stabilisation). Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was body mass index at 12 months post randomisation. Qualitative interviews conducted during the trial included semistructured interviews to investigate patients’, families’ and clinicians’ views on treatments. Results: During the 16-month recruitment period (November 2020 to March 2022), 53 patients were approached. Of these, 15 were enrolled and randomly allocated to the inpatient treatment-as-usual (n = 7) or day-patient treatment (n = 8) treatment arms. All participants were female with a mean (standard deviation) age of 24.8 (9.1) years and a mean (standard deviation) body mass index of 14.4 (1.6) kg/m². Patients’ body mass indexes had increased similarly in both groups at 12 months. Participants perceived the stepped-care day-patient treatment approach to be more acceptable than inpatient treatment-as-usual. Qualitative interviews with patients, carers and clinicians suggested valued (e.g. multidisciplinary provision of care) and disliked (e.g. perceived over-focus on weight gain) aspects of treatment. Investigation of the reasons behind the trial’s failure revealed strong treatment preferences among patients as the most common reason for non-participation, alongside the impact of COVID-19 on service provision. Limitations: The main trial questions could not be answered due to low participant numbers. Conclusions: No conclusions can be drawn concerning the clinical and cost-effectiveness of inpatient treatment-as-usual or stepped-care day-patient treatment. The day-patient treatment approach was perceived more positively by patients and carers. Service-related (e.g. reduced clinician time for research), patient-related (e.g. treatment preferences) and wider systemic factors (e.g. reduced service capacity and patient throughput nationally during COVID-19) seem to have contributed to the failure of the DAISIES trial. Future work: Despite the trial’s failure, the need to investigate the effectiveness and experience of intensive treatments of adult anorexia nervosa remains. Alternative trial designs incorporating patient preferences and investigating community-based intensive treatment options have potential to improve acceptability and recruitment. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number HTA 17/123/03.

While individuals with Bulimia Nervosa (BN) and Binge Eating Disorder (BED) often present with a higher rate of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) than the general population, it is unclear whether this extends to AN. This cross-sectional study examined differences in alcohol-related behaviours, measured using the Alcohol Use Identification Test (AUDIT), between AN participants (n = 58), recovered AN (rec-AN) participants (n = 25), and healthy controls (n = 57). Statistical models controlled for age and ethnicity. The relationship between alcohol-related behaviours with ED psychopathology and with depression was also assessed. The findings indicated that acute AN participants were not at greater risk of AUD than healthy controls. However, rec-AN participants displayed greater total audit scores than those with acute AN, and more alcohol-related behaviours than healthy controls. Acute AN participants consumed significantly less alcohol than both the healthy control group and rec-AN group. No associations were found between ED psychopathology and alcohol-related behaviours in the AN group or rec-AN. This highlights alcohol as a potential coping mechanism following AN recovery. Clinicians should consider assessments for AUD and targeted interventions aimed at encouraging healthy coping mechanisms in this group. Future studies should look at alcohol use as a moderating factor for AN recovery.

Background: Timely intervention is beneficial to the effectiveness of eating disorder (ED) treatment, but limited capacity within ED services means that these disorders are often not treated with sufficient speed. This service evaluation extends previous research into guided self-help (GSH) for adults with bulimic spectrum EDs by assessing the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effectiveness of virtually delivered GSH using videoconferencing.Method: Patients with bulimia nervosa (BN), binge eating disorder (BED) and other specified feeding and eating disorders (OSFED) waiting for treatment in a large specialist adult ED out-patient service were offered virtually delivered GSH. The programme used an evidence-based cognitive behavioural self-help book. Individuals were supported by non-expert coaches, who delivered the eight-session programme via videoconferencing.Results: One hundred and thirty patients were allocated to a GSH coach between 1 September 2020 and 30 September 2022; 106 (82%) started treatment and 78 (60%) completed treatment. Amongst completers, there were large reductions in ED behaviours and attitudinal symptoms, measured by the ED-15. The largest effect sizes for change between pre- and post-treatment were seen for binge eating episode frequency (d = –0.89) and concerns around eating (d = –1.72). Patients from minoritised ethnic groups were over-represented in the non-completer group.Conclusions: Virtually delivered GSH is feasible, acceptable and effective in reducing ED symptoms amongst those with bulimic spectrum disorders. Implementing virtually delivered GSH reduced waiting times, offering a potential solution for long waiting times for ED treatment. Further research is needed to compare GSH to other brief therapies and investigate barriers for patients from culturally diverse groups.

ObjectiveThe relative merits of inpatient or day-treatment for adults with anorexia nervosa (AN) are unknown. The DAISIES trial aimed to establish the non-inferiority of a stepped-care day patient treatment (DPT) approach versus inpatient treatment as usual (IP-TAU) for improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months in adults with AN. The trial was terminated due to poor recruitment. This paper presents outcomes and investigates the reasons behind the trial's failure.MethodFifteen patients with AN (of 53 approached) participated and were followed-up to 6 or 12 months. Summary statistics were calculated due to low sample size, and qualitative data concerning treatment experiences were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsAt baseline, participants in both trial arms rated stepped-care DPT as more acceptable. At 12 months, participants' BMIs had increased in both trial arms. Qualitative analysis highlighted valued and challenging aspects of care across settings. Only 6/12 sites opened for recruitment. Among patients approached, the most common reason for declining participation was their treatment preference (n = 12/38).ConclusionsNo conclusions can be drawn concerning the effectiveness of IP-TAU and stepped-care DPT, but the latter was perceived more positively. Patient-related, service-related and systemic factors (COVID-19) contributed to the trial's failure. Lessons learnt can inform future studies. Patient-related (e.g., treatment preferences) and service-related (e.g., reduced service capacity) alongside wider systemic (e.g., increased emergency admissions due to COVID-19) factors seem to have contributed to the failure of the DAISIES trial.Patients and carers identified valued aspects for both inpatient (e.g., weight gain) and day-patient (e.g., greater link to home environment) treatment settings, but day-patient treatment was perceived as a more holistic and collaborative approach, and thus as more positive.Although randomised controlled studies investigating intensive treatments for severe anorexia nervosa are important and necessary, alternative study designs should be explored to overcome implementation challenges.

Objective: The DAISIES trial, comparing inpatient and stepped‐care day patient treatment for adults with severe anorexia nervosa was prematurely terminated in March 2022 due to poor recruitment. This qualitative study seeks to understand the difficulties faced during the trial by investigating stakeholders' views on and experiences of its implementation.Method: Semi‐structured interview and focus group transcripts, and trial management and oversight group meeting minutes from May 2020‐June 2022 were analysed using thematic analysis. Participants were 47 clinicians and co‐investigators involved with the DAISIES trial. The Non‐Adoption, Abandonment, Scale‐up, Spread, and Sustainability (NASSS) framework was applied to the interpretive themes to classify barriers and facilitators to implementation.Results: Five themes were identified: incompatible participation interests; changing standard practice; concerns around clinical management; systemic capacity and capability issues; and Covid‐19 disrupting implementation. Applying the NASSS framework indicated the greatest implementation challenges to arise with the adopters (e.g. patients, clinicians), the organisational systems (e.g. service capacity), and the wider socio‐political context (e.g. Covid‐19 closing services).Conclusions: Our findings emphasise the top‐down impact of systemic‐level research implementation challenges. The impact of the Covid‐19 pandemic accentuated pre‐existing organisational barriers to trial implementation within intensive eating disorder services, further limiting the capacity for research.

Background: Anorexia nervosa (AN) is a serious and disabling mental disorder with a high disease burden. In a proportion of cases, intensive hospital-based treatments, i.e. inpatient or day patient treatment, are required, with day patient treatment often being used as a ‘step-down’ treatment after a period of inpatient treatment. Demand for such treatment approaches has seen a sharp rise. Despite this, the relative merits of these approaches for patients, their families, and the NHS and wider society are relatively unknown. This paper describes the rationale for, and protocol of, a two-arm multi-centre open-label parallel group non-inferiority randomised controlled trial, evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these two intensive treatments for adults with severe AN: inpatient treatment as usual and a stepped care day patient approach (the combination of day patient treatment with the option of initial inpatient treatment for medical stabilisation). The main aim of this trial is to establish whether, in adults with severe AN, a stepped care day patient approach is non-inferior to inpatient treatment as usual in relation to improving body mass index (BMI) at 12 months post-randomisation. Methods: 386 patients with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th edition diagnosis of severe AN or related disorder, with a BMI of ≤16 kg/m² and in need of intensive treatment will be randomly allocated to either inpatient treatment as usual or a stepped care day patient approach. Patients in both groups will receive treatment until they reach a healthy weight or get as close to this point as possible. Assessments will be conducted at baseline (prior to randomisation), and at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation, with additional monthly symptom monitoring. The primary outcome will be BMI at the 12-month post-randomisation assessment. Other outcomes will include psychosocial adjustment; treatment motivation, expectations and experiences; cost-effectiveness; and carer burden. Discussion: The results of this study will provide a rigorous evaluation of two intensive treatment approaches which will inform future national and international treatment guidelines and service provision. Trial registration: ISRCTN ISRCTN10166784. Registered 28 February 2020. ISRCTN is a primary registry of the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) network and includes all items from the WHO Trial Registration Data Set.