Rosiel Elwyn

Background: Eating disorders (ED) and psychosis/psychotic‐spectrum disorders (PSD) have overlapping symptoms and may co‐occur in a variety of presentations. Due to its debilitating and life‐threatening risk, it is important for clinicians to be aware of how catatonia may present within these co‐occurrences. Method: A narrative review was conducted of catatonic presentations in individuals with co‐occurring EDs and psychosis, using the databases Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, PubMed, ProQuest and PsychInfo. Results: This article reviews and summarises the 10 cases found in the literature, and explores critical considerations within ED‐psychosis co‐occurrence, including the author's lived experience insight into experiencing catatonia within co‐occurring ED‐psychosis. In 9 out of 10 cases, catatonia occurred during adolescence (ages 13–24). Fifty percent of cases involved stressful or traumatic events as a precipitant to catatonia emergence. Autistic individuals with EDs may be particularly vulnerable to catatonic symptoms. In most cases, catatonic symptoms responded to lorazepam treatment or a combination of lorazepam and other medications such as antipsychotics, although tube‐feeding was also required in some cases. Conclusion: This review discusses key factors and intersections that are highly relevant to individuals vulnerable to EDs and psychosis (i.e., malnutrition, trauma, autism, bipolar disorder, OCD). Catatonic symptoms may be mistaken for ED symptoms, delaying early treatment in individuals with ED. Consideration of catatonic presentations and trauma‐informed and neurodivergent‐affirming treatment practices are recommended.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40337-026-01670-2.

Eating disorders can result in inpatient admissions. The transition of care between this tier of service and outpatient support can be challenging, particu

Objective: The importance of including people with a lived experience (LE) of eating disorders (ED) in the development and conduct of research is being recognised for the value it brings to the field. While the risks and benefits are beginning to be understood, there is still a lack of clarity around how to support LE partners through the process. This study examined perspectives on LE collaboration in ED research from individuals with personal LE, carers, clinicians, and researchers. Methods: An online survey yielded 122 participants: 71 with personal LE, 37 carers, 21 clinicians, and 18 researchers. Results: While researchers generally supported LE collaboration, carers were more hesitant. Across groups, the main perceived benefit was producing more meaningful research and improved treatments, while the primary concern was the risk of relapse for LE contributors. Views varied on the appropriate illness stage for LE involvement, though most agreed that readiness should be assessed collaboratively. Researchers strongly endorsed the development of ED‐specific guidelines for LE engagement. Conclusions: Overall, each of the groups valued LE input but identified a need for clearer guidance on safe and effective collaboration.

Research literature does not sufficiently address the causes of human rights abuse involved in the use of seclusion and restraint for people experiencing mental health concerns. This article uses a socio‐political analysis alongside in‐depth exploration of lived experience accounts, to emphasise that the use of restrictive practices is an abuse of human rights. A narrative literature review consistent with the PRISMA 2020 statement identified three major themes: (1) first‐person accounts of violent, degrading and dehumanising practices in mental health facilities; (2) inpatient care as a risk factor to mental health/wellbeing (compounded distress, retraumatisation, vicious cycles of restrictive practices); and (3) the need for trauma‐informed care and systems‐level change. Systemic change and elimination of seclusion and restraint in psychiatric settings are possible through the adoption of alternative practices, widespread education on no‐restraint methods and integration of human rights values in care. However, there is a continuing lack of political will to adequately resource mental health services in Australia to enable systemic change. This results in the current system being maintained and upheld, and the continued use of seclusion and restraint. With a lack of access to trauma‐informed approaches and a lack of organisational support, mental health practitioners continue to use restrictive practices, resulting in iatrogenic harm.

This poetic mediation explores eating disorder as trauma survival and embodied language of suffering that has been hidden and silenced. Treatment processes and experiences that misunderstand and pathologize this embodied language and survival recreate silence, powerlessness, entrapment and trauma, and therefore, reinforce the need for the eating disorder as a means to find voice, autonomy, and freedom.

Disordered eating or eating disorders (ED) and psychosis commonly co-occur and have a degree of overlap, however there are no current clinical guidelines or comprehensive clinical guidance for integrated treatment. This lived experience case offers insight into symptom cross-over, perception and beliefs that may occur in coexisting ED and psychosis (i.e., eating disorder voice, psychotic voice-hearing, delusional beliefs about food, eating disorder-driven overvalued beliefs about eating/the body, body image disturbance, depersonalization, derealization). The detailed examples within this case highlight helpful treatment approaches to support trust and safety in care and prevent patient deterioration in co-occurring diagnosis of longstanding anorexia nervosa, schizoaffective disorder and trauma/PTSD. Lived experience involvement in research and clinical guidance development is needed in order to further understanding of co-occurring conditions such as ED, psychosis and trauma, to improve shared decision-making, and treatment personalization.