Posted on

A Comparison of Treatment Outcomes: AN, BN, and EDNOS

My previous posts described treatment outcomes and correlates of my patients with various eating disorder diagnoses, including Anorexia Nervosa (AN), Bulimia Nervosa (BN), and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS). Some findings were similar across diagnostic groups:

• The vast majority of patients with any diagnosis who completed treatment achieved full remission.

• The attrition rate, overall, was high.

• Family-Based Treatment (FBT) was associated with treatment retention, meaning that patients who participated in FBT were less likely to discontinue treatment prematurely than those receiving individual therapy.

• Patients who paid a reduced rate for services were much less likely to complete treatment and much less likely to achieve remission than those who paid full rate.

• Hospitalization during treatment with me was not related to treatment completion or treatment outcome, regardless of diagnosis.

• History of intensive eating disorder treatment (e.g., residential treatment, day treatment) was related to treatment non-completion and poorer outcome for patients across diagnoses.

Quite surprisingly, the differences among the diagnostic groups outnumbered the similarities:

• Patients with AN who completed treatment attended more sessions, over a longer period of time, than patients with BN or EDNOS. Completing treatment for AN involved an average of 28 sessions over 17 months, whereas completing treatment for BN or EDNOS involved an average of 15 sessions over 10 months.

• Type of treatment had a significant impact on outcome for patients with AN but not for patients with BN or EDNOS. All AN patients who achieved remission did so through FBT. However, patients with BN and EDNOS achieved remission through various means, including individual therapy with no family involvement, individual therapy with family involvement, and FBT.

• Younger age at intake and shorter duration of illness predicted treatment completion and remission for patients with AN. However, neither age nor duration of illness affected treatment outcome for patients with BN or EDNOS.

• All “treatment non-completers” with AN (those who quit prematurely, moved away, or were referred to other treatment settings) discontinued treatment within the first six months. In contrast, a number of “treatment non-completers” with BN or EDNOS remained in treatment for more than a year.

• Among patients with AN, those who completed treatment attended significantly more sessions than those who did not (28 sessions vs. 8 sessions) and remained in treatment for a much longer time than those who did not (17 months vs. 3 months). In contrast, for patients with BN and EDNOS, treatment completers and non-completers both remained in treatment for an average of 10 months, and treatment non-completers actually averaged more sessions than treatment completers (20 sessions vs. 15 sessions). Thus, it appears that for BN and ENDOS, treatment completers did not remain in treatment longer, but rather reached remission more quickly.

• Caucasians with AN were slightly more likely than Hispanics with AN to complete treatment and achieve remission. In contrast, Hispanics with BN or EDNOS were significantly more likely than Caucasians with these diagnoses to complete treatment and achieve remission.

• The presence of a comborbid disorder was not related to treatment completion or treatment outcome for patients with AN. However, the presence of a comorbid disorder was a significant predictor of treatment dropout and poorer outcome for patients with BN and EDNOS.

• History of hospitalization for an eating disorder or related psychiatric issue was related to poorer outcome for patients with BN and EDNOS, but not for patients with AN.

• Taking psychotropic medication during treatment was related to treatment completion and positive outcome for patients with AN but not for patients with BN or EDNOS.

Please bear in mind that these findings are specific to my practice and my patients, and are not intended to be generalized to other treatment settings or other patients.

Posted on

Correlates of Treatment Outcome for Patients with BN & EDNOS

My previous post described the treatment outcomes of my 21 former patients with diagnoses of Bulimia Nervosa (BN) or Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS). Treatment was very successful for these patients, with 100% of those who completed treatment (n = 7) achieving full remission. However, the attrition rate was very high, with two-thirds of patients (n = 14) discontinuing treatment prematurely for various reasons. Nineteen percent (n = 4) of patients were referred to other providers or treatment settings because I was unable to meet their needs, 5% (n = 1) moved to another geographic area, and 43% (n = 9) quit before finishing treatment.

Given that treatment completion always led to full remission, attrition appears to be the biggest challenge for this population. Therefore, my post will focus on the differences between those who completed treatment and therefore achieved full remission (aka “treatment completers”) versus those who did not (“treatment non-completers”).

Neither age at intake nor duration of illness before intake predicted treatment outcome. Both treatment completers and treatment non-completers averaged approximately 19 years old at intake, with an average duration of illness of 4.5 years.

Patients who completed treatment and achieved full remission did so through a variety of treatment modalities: 43% (n = 3) received individual therapy with no family involvement, 29% (n = 2) received Family-Based Treatment (FBT), 14% (n = 1) received individual therapy with a high level of family involvement, and 14% (n = 1) received individual therapy with moderate family involvement.

Patients receiving FBT (n = 7) were significantly less likely than those receiving individual therapy to quit treatment prematurely. Only 14% of patients receiving FBT (n = 1) quit treatment prematurely. I referred 43% of them (n = 3) to other treatment settings due to my inability to help them progress in treatment. Twenty-nine percent (n = 2) completed treatment with me and 14% (n = 1) moved to another geographic area and continued her treatment there.

Of the 14 patients who received individual therapy, 57% (n = 8) quit treatment prematurely. The remainder of patients either completed treatment and achieved full remission (36%; n = 5) or were referred to other treatment settings (7%; n = 1).

Interestingly, treatment completers did not differ from treatment non-completers on duration of treatment or on number of sessions attended. For treatment completers, duration of treatment ranged from 1-38 months, with an average duration of 10 months. For treatment non-completers, duration of treatment ranged from 1-28 months, with an average duration of 10 months. Treatment completers attended an average of 15 sessions, while treatment non-completers attended an average of 20 sessions. Thus, it appears that treatment completers did not necessarily remain in treatment longer, but rather reached remission more quickly. Anecdotally, I recall that a number of patients who quit treatment prematurely actually did quite well in their first 6-9 months of treatment and nearly reached remission, but then began to regress, got discouraged, and quit.

Rates of treatment completion and treatment outcome differed based on diagnosis. Amongst patients with BN, 22% (n = 2) completed treatment and achieved full remission, while 44% (n = 4) made significant progress prior to discontinuing treatment. For patients with EDNOS, 42% completed treatment and achieved full remission, while 17% (n = 2) made significant progress prior to discontinuing treatment.

Prior history of untreated Anorexia Nervosa (AN) was associated with treatment dropout and poor outcome. Only 18% (n = 2) of those with a prior history of AN completed their BN/EDNOS treatment with me, and both of those patients had been successfully treated for AN years before. None of the patients with a prior history of untreated AN completed their treatment with me.

Patients with a co-morbid disorder were much less likely to complete treatment. While two-thirds of patients in this sample (n = 14) had a co-morbid disorder, only 29% of them (n = 4) completed treatment and achieved remission.

Taking psychotropic medication during treatment was not related to treatment completion. Thirty-six percent of those who took medication during treatment (n = 4) completed treatment and achieved full remission, compared with 30% (n = 3) of those who did not take medication during treatment.

This sample of patients was 71% Caucasian (n = 15), 24% Hispanic (n = 5), and 5% multi-racial (n = 1). Hispanic patients were much more likely to complete treatment and achieve remission than Caucasian patients. Eighty percent (n = 4) of Hispanic patients in this sample completed treatment and achieved remission, compared with only 20% (n = 3) of Caucasian patients.

I work on a sliding fee scale, offering reduced rates based on patient’s ability to pay. Those who paid my full rate were more likely to complete treatment and achieve remission compared with those who paid a reduced rate. Forty-six percent of those who paid my full rate completed treatment (n = 6), compared with 25% of those who paid a reduced rate (n = 2).

Individuals with a history of intensive eating disorder treatment were less likely to complete treatment than those without such a history. Amongst treatment non-completers, 50% (n = 7) had been hospitalized for their eating disorder or a related psychiatric issue, 21% (n = 3) had a history of residential treatment, and 21% had been in partial hospitalization, day treatment, or intensive outpatient programs. Amongst treatment completers, 29% (n = 2) had a prior history of hospitalization, 14% (n = 1) had a history of residential treatment, and none had a history of partial hospitalization, day treatment, or intensive outpatient treatment. The need for hospitalization during treatment with me was not related to treatment completion or treatment outcome.

In sum, the only variables that were related to treatment completion and remission were diagnosis of EDNOS and payment of my full fee for services. The following variables were associated with treatment non-completion: presence of a comorbid diagnosis, history of untreated AN, and prior history of intensive eating disorder treatment. Surprisingly, neither age at intake, duration of illness before intake, type of treatment received, number of sessions attended, duration of treatment, nor need for hospitalization during treatment were related to treatment completion.

These findings are specific to my practice and my patients, and are not intended to be generalized to other clinicians or other populations.

My next post will explore similarities and differences in treatment outcome among patients with AN, BN, and EDNOS.

Posted on

End of Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Bulimia Nervosa & EDNOS

Since I opened my practice in 2009, I have evaluated 10 patients with a diagnosis of Bulimia Nervosa (BN) and 16 patients with a diagnosis of Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (EDNOS). All patients with a diagnosis of BN or EDNOS who attended an evaluation and at least one treatment session with me, and who are no longer in treatment with me, were included in this sample. Patients I evaluated who did not attend any treatment sessions with me were not included in this sample. Patients who are currently in treatment with me were not included in this sample either. Thus, the sample I will be describing includes a total of 21 patients: 12 with EDNOS and 9 with BN.

As you continue to read, bear in mind that these results are specific to my practice and my patients. These data should not be generalized to other clinicians or other patients.

All patients in this sample were female. Age at intake ranged from 14 – 28, with an average age of 19. Two thirds of the patients (n = 14) had a comorbid disorder, with the most common being Major Depressive Disorder. Sixty-two percent of patients (n = 13) paid my full rate for services, while 38% (n = 8) paid a reduced rate.

For the purpose of calculating duration of illness, the onset of illness was defined as the period of time in which the patient began engaging in behavioral symptoms of eating disorders (e.g., restricting, bingeing, compulsive exercise, purging) as reported by the patient and/or parents. This is an important point to clarify, as symptoms of the illness typically begin long before a diagnosis is made. Length of illness before intake varied considerably, ranging from 6 months to 15 years, with an average of 4.5 years.

Over half of the patients in this sample (n = 11) had a prior history of Anorexia Nervosa (AN). Some of them had been diagnosed with and treated for AN, while others met criteria for AN at one point but were not treated until their illness morphed into BN or EDNOS.

The patients in this sample with EDNOS (n = 12) presented with a range of different symptoms. Half of the patients (n = 6) struggled with some combination of restricting, bingeing, and purging. One quarter of patients (n = 3) presented primarily with binge eating. Seventeen percent (n = 2) had Type I diabetes and withheld insulin (known as “diabulimia”). Eight percent (n = 1) presented with body image distress associated with a history of AN.

Ninety percent of these patients (n = 19) had a history of some type of psychological treatment prior to meeting with me. The majority had been in individual therapy for their eating disorder at some point. Forty-three percent of the sample (n = 9) had been hospitalized for their eating disorder or for a related psychiatric issue prior to beginning treatment with me. Nineteen percent (n = 4) had a history of residential eating disorders treatment and 24% (n = 5) had a history of partial hospitalization, day treatment, or intensive outpatient treatment.

One-third of the patients in this sample (n = 7) were treated with Family-Based Treatment (FBT). The remaining two-thirds (n = 14) were treated with individual Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT), with varying degrees of family involvement. Of the individual therapy patients, 21% (n = 3) had a high level of family involvement, meaning that a family member participated in part of each session, shared information and impressions frequently, was kept apprised of weekly goals and progress, and maintained regular phone and email contact with me. Twenty-nine percent of individual therapy patients (n = 4) had a moderate level of family involvement, meaning that a family member participated in some sessions and had occasional phone and email contact with me. Seven percent of individual therapy patients (n = 1) had a low level of family involvement, meaning that a family member attended one or two sessions, and 43% of individual therapy patients (n = 6) had no family involvement whatsoever.

Parents were the most common family members involved in the patient’s treatment. However, some patients had boyfriends, husbands, stepparents, grandparents, siblings, aunts, and uncles involved depending on their living situation and individual circumstances. Whenever family members were involved with treatment, the focus was on providing them with psycho-education about eating disorders and enlisting them as sources of practical and emotional support for the patient at home. Family members were coached in providing meal support and in assisting their loved one in refraining from eating disorder behaviors such as bingeing and purging.

For patients who received individual therapy, my approach was primarily cognitive-behavioral (CBT). In addition, many patients were taught Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) skills such as distress tolerance and emotion regulation, as well as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) principles such as thought defusion and values-based living.

Patients in this sample attended between 2 and 54 sessions, with an average of 18 sessions. Duration of treatment with me ranged from 1 month to 38 months, with a mean of duration of 10 months. Slightly more than half of the patients (n = 11) took psychotropic medication while in treatment with me. Three patients had to be hospitalized over the course of their treatment with me.

All patients were assigned an end-of-treatment status describing how they had progressed as of their final session with me. Outcomes were defined as follows:

1. Patient must meet ALL of the following criteria to be classified as in full remission:
a.) Patient gets regular menstrual periods.
b.) Patient is medically healthy, with good vital signs and blood work.
c.) Patient is completely abstinent from eating disorder behaviors, including restricting, binge/purge behaviors, laxatives, and diet pills.
d.) Patient eats regular, balanced meals most of the time or always, as reported by patient and parent (when applicable)
e.) No more than mild preoccupation with food, weight, body image, or fear of weight gain

2. Patient is classified as in physical remission if she meets criteria a, b, c, and d under full remission, but does not meet criteria e under full remission. Essentially, a patient in physical remission is physically well and free of eating disorder behaviors, but continues to be very distressed with her body image and/or preoccupied with thoughts about food and weight.

3. Patient is classified as having made significant progress if:
a.) Patient has made significant improvement in dietary habits (e.g., eats regular, balanced meals and snacks) as reported by patient and parents (when applicable)
b.) Patient is medically healthy, with good vital signs and blood work
c.) Frequency of eating disorder behaviors (e.g., restricting, bingeing, purging) has been reduced to once per week or less.

4. Patient is classified as having made some progress if:
a.) Patient has improved dietary habits somewhat since intake, but needs more improvement
b.) Patient has reduced the frequency of eating disorder behaviors (e.g., restricting, bingeing, purging) since intake, but still engages in these behaviors more than once per week.

5. Patient is classified as having made no progress if she has not improved dietary habits and/or has not reduced the frequency of eating disorder behaviors.

6. Patient is classified as regressed if she meets ANY of the following criteria:
a.) Dietary intake has declined since intake (e.g., more skipped meals, less variety, less nutritional balance)
b.) Frequency of binge/purge behaviors has increased since intake
c.) Patient has become medically unstable

Thirty-three percent of patients (n = 7) completed treatment, 43% (n = 9) quit treatment prematurely, 19% (n = 4) were referred to other providers or treatment settings because I was unable to meet their needs, and 5% (n = 1) moved to another geographic area during treatment.

One-hundred percent of the patients who completed treatment (n = 7) reached full remission. For those who completed treatment, known henceforth as “treatment completers,” duration of treatment ranged from one month to 38 months, with an average duration of 10 months. Number of sessions attended for treatment completers ranged from 3 – 45, with an average of 15 sessions. In other words, the typical patient with BN or EDNOS who completed treatment achieved full remission in 15 sessions over the course of 10 months.

Unfortunately, the attrition rate was very high, so these treatment completers comprised only one-third of the full sample. Of the 14 patients who discontinued prematurely, 43% (n = 6) made significant progress, another 43% (n = 6) made some progress, 7% (n = 1) made no progress, and 7% regressed (n = 1).

My next post will involve a detailed examination of the differences between patients who completed treatment and reached full remission versus those who discontinued treatment prematurely and did not reach full remission.

Posted on

Correlates of Treatment Outcome for Patients with Anorexia Nervosa

In my last blog post, I described the end-of-treatment outcomes of my former patients (N = 30) with Anorexia Nervosa (AN). In sum, 57% of patients completed treatment (n=17) and 43% of patients (n = 13) did not complete treatment. The former group is referred to as “treatment completers” and the latter as “treatment non-completers.”

As expected, end-of-treatment results differed dramatically between the two groups. By the end of treatment, 94% percent of treatment completers had achieved full remission and 6% (n = 1) had achieved physical remission. In contrast, none of the treatment non-completers achieved remission, although 46% of them made significant progress (n = 6).

Bear in mind that I set the bar very high for my patients in terms of defining remission. In most published studies of AN treatment outcome, the patients whom I categorized as having made significant progress would be categorized as “recovered” or “in remission.” If I used the (completely inadequate) definitions of remission that other studies have used, a full 77% of my sample would have completed treatment and made a full recovery. But I digress.

These data clearly demonstrate that my approach to treating AN is effective. Patients with AN who have completed treatment with me always achieved physical remission and almost always achieved psychological and behavioral remission as well.

The 43% attrition rate is disheartening, given that patients are likely to achieve remission if they remain in treatment long enough. Attrition is a major problem in AN treatment in general, and in AN treatment for adults in particular. The validity of most AN treatment outcome studies is compromised by the high rates of attrition. It is not surprising that many adults discontinue AN treatment prematurely, given that treatment is very difficult, anxiety provoking, and lengthy.

This raises the question of what is “long enough” in terms of AN treatment? In my opinion, “long enough” is as long as it takes to bring the patient to full remission, which varies considerably based on individual differences. Among the treatment completers, the length of time to full remission ranged from 2 months to 4 years, with a mean of 17 months. The number of sessions attended by treatment completers ranged from 3 – 82, with a mean of 28 sessions. There were a handful of the young patients who achieved full remission in 12 sessions or less, although this was not the norm.

The rates of treatment completion versus non-completion in my sample beg the question of how these two groups differed. What was it that made treatment completers stick it out until the end, while the treatment non-completers either quit or regressed to the point that they required more intensive treatment? Cause and effect cannot be determined from this type of study. However, a careful examination of the similarities and differences between treatment completers and non-completers may yield useful information and hypotheses which can be tested in future studies.

The patients who completed treatment and reached remission differed in several important ways from those who discontinued treatment prematurely.

Variables That Had a Significant Impact on Treatment Outcome:

1.) Type of Treatment

In my practice, all children and adolescents under age 18 with AN receive FBT (Family-Based Treatment, also known as the Maudsley Method). Some adolescents also receive individual therapy as an adjunct to FBT after weight restoration. Some children and adolescents transition to individual therapy with me after FBT is complete; this may be the case for those who have comorbid disorders or other ongoing issues. Patients over 18 with AN are strongly encouraged to do FBT whenever appropriate, although it is not always possible for logistical reasons, and some young adults are staunchly opposed to it. In my sample, 66.7% of patients (n = 20) received FBT alone, 16.7% (n = 5) received FBT plus individual therapy, and 16.7% (n = 5) received individual therapy alone.

In my sample, all of the patients who received individual therapy alone were 20 or older. Six of the 11 young adults in my sample (n = 55%) participated in FBT, either alone or in conjunction with individual therapy. All of the patients under age 18 received FBT, and two of these patients also received individual therapy.

One-hundred percent of treatment completers (n = 17) received FBT, either by itself (n = 15) or in conjunction with individual therapy (n = 2). In other words, all patients who achieved remission did so through FBT. One-hundred percent of the patients who did individual therapy alone (n = 5) ended treatment prematurely, either because they moved (n = 2), they quit (n = 2), or I referred them to a higher level of care (n = 1). In other words, individual therapy by itself never resulted in treatment completion or remission.

2.) Subtype of AN

This sample contained 5 patients with the Binge-Purge subtype of AN (AN – BP) and 25 patients with the Restricting subtype of AN (AN – R). One-hundred percent of treatment completers had a diagnosis of AN-R. None of the AN-BP patients completed treatment.

Among the AN-BP patients, 2 were referred to higher levels of care after regressing during treatment with me. One patient moved to another state after making some progress in treatment with me. Two patients quit treatment prematurely after making significant progress with me.

The patients in my sample with AN-BP were more likely to have a history of impulsivity, self-injury, and suicidal gestures compared to those with AN-R. I hypothesize that this cluster of symptoms made these patients more difficult for me to treat effectively as an outpatient solo practitioner, and more likely to benefit from a more structured, comprehensive treatment approach such as day treatment or residential treatment.

3.) Age

On average, those who completed treatment and achieved remission were significantly younger at intake than those who did not complete treatment (p <.01). Treatment completers ranged in age from 10 – 24 at intake, with a median age of 14. Treatment non-completers ranged in age from 10 – 37, with a median age of 20. However, it is important to note that there was a broad range of ages in both groups, with some young adults achieving full remission and some children and adolescents discontinuing treatment prematurely. 4.) Fee Paid for Services I believe that neither finances nor insurance issues should prevent people from accessing high-quality healthcare services. Therefore, I do not participate on any insurance panels. I am flexible with my fees and I work on a sliding scale based on a patient's ability to pay. If a family’s financial status changes during the course of treatment, I will change my fee for them accordingly. I work with many patients for very low hourly fees. Thus, I can only assume that the patients who discontinued treatment prematurely did not do so for financial reasons. Among the patients in this AN sample, 87% (n = 26) paid my full fee and 13% (n = 4) paid a reduced rate. The rate of reduced-pay patients in this sample is significantly lower than in my other diagnostic groups. I hypothesize that this may be due to the fact that the majority of patients in this sample received family-based treatment and had at least one parent who was a working professional, or who at least was employed full-time. In contrast, many of my patients with other diagnoses were college students supporting themselves, who were therefore eligible for a low fee. In this sample of AN patients, those who paid a reduced rate were significantly less likely to complete treatment compared to those who paid a full rate. Only 25% of reduced fee patients (n = 1) completed treatment, versus 62% of full fee patients (n = 16). It is unclear why reduced rate patients were less likely to complete treatment. However, the reduced rate patients differed from the full rate patients in several important ways. First, and most obviously, they had lower incomes, and likely dealt with the host of stressors that accompany being of lower socio-economic status. Second, they were all over the age of 18, which statistically reduces their likelihood of full recovery. Third, they were more likely to receive individual therapy than the full-rate patients. All of the low-rate patients received individual therapy, either alone (n = 2) or in combination with FBT (n = 2). Observing my patients with other diagnoses, I have noticed that those who pay full rate are much more likely to attend all of their sessions and to complete treatment, whereas those who pay lower rates are more likely to cancel sessions, no-show for sessions, and drop out prematurely. While I’m sure that the reasons for these differences are complex, I can’t help but wonder if people who pay more for something tend to value it more and take it more seriously. Variables That Had a Minor Impact on Treatment Outcome:

1.) Length of illness before intake.

Among treatment completers, length of illness before intake ranged from 3 months to 13 years (mean = 27 months). Amongst treatment non-completers, length of illness before intake ranged from 3 months to 21 years (mean = 67 months). However, this difference was not statistically significant (t = 1.63; p = 0.11).

2.) Use of Medication During Treatment

Individuals who took psychotropic medication during treatment with me were somewhat more likely to complete treatment and achieve remission. Fifty-nine percent of treatment completers (n = 10) took medication during treatment, compared with 38% of treatment non-completers (n = 5).

3.) Ethnicity

This sample of 30 patients was comprised of 60% White Non-Hispanic individuals (n = 18) and 40% White Hispanic Individuals (n = 12). These percentages are roughly similar to the ethnic makeup of Coral Gables, Florida, the Miami Suburb in which my office is located. The treatment completers group was comprised of 71% White Non-Hispanic individuals (n = 12) and 29% White Hispanic individuals (n = 5). The treatment non-completers group included 46% White Non-Hispanics (n = 6) and 54% White Hispanics (n = 7). Therefore, White Non-Hispanics were slightly more likely to complete treatment and achieve full recovery than White Hispanics.

4.) History of intensive eating disorder treatment.

History of residential, day treatment, or intensive outpatient treatment had a minor impact on treatment outcome. Twelve percent of treatment completers (n = 2) and 23% of treatment non-completers (n = 3) had a history of residential eating disorders treatment prior to beginning treatment with me. Twenty-four percent of treatment completers (n = 4) and 31% of treatment non-completers had a history of partial hospitalization, day treatment, or intensive outpatient eating disorder treatment.

Variables that Had No Impact on Treatment Outcome:

1.) Comorbid disorders

The presence of comorbid disorders did not differ significantly between the two groups. Fifty-three percent of treatment completers (n = 9) had a comorbid diagnosis, as did 46% of treatment non-completers.

2.) Gender.

Given that only 7% of the sample was male (n = 2), I cannot draw any conclusions about gender differences in treatment response. Incidentally, both of the males in my sample achieved full recovery.

3.) Hospitalization before treatment.

Being hospitalized for AN or a related psychiatric issue prior to beginning treatment with me did not have a significant impact on treatment outcome. Thirty-five percent of treatment completers (n = 6) had been hospitalized at least one prior to beginning treatment with me, as had 31% percent of treatment non-completers (n = 4).

4.) Hospitalization during treatment.

The need for hospitalization during the course of treatment with me did not have a significant impact on treatment outcome. Eighteen percent of treatment completers (n = 3) needed to be hospitalized during the course of their treatment, compared with 15% (n = 2) of treatment non-completers.

These data, taken together, suggest that a patient with AN-R who enters treatment with me and receives FBT is very likely to achieve full remission within 28 sessions over the course of 17 months, regardless of gender, comorbid diagnosis, or history of hospitalization. A patient under age 18 has a greater likelihood of achieving full remission, although a patient over 18 is also likely to achieve full remission, provided that he or she is treated with FBT.

Please bear in mind that these results are specific to my practice and my patients. These data are not intended to be generalized to other clinicians or other patient populations.

Posted on

End of Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Anorexia Nervosa

Since opening my practice in 2009, I have evaluated 49 patients with primary diagnoses of Anorexia Nervosa (AN). All patients who attended an evaluation and at least one treatment session with me, and who are no longer in treatment with me, were included in this sample. In addition, there were several patients who have completed their treatment but have elected to see me two or three times per year for check-ins; these patients were included in this sample as well. Patients who are currently in treatment with me were not included. Patients who saw me for an evaluation and / or consultation only, but did not attend any treatment sessions, were not included either. Thirty patients met criteria for inclusion in this sample. The remaining 19 did not meet criteria, either because they saw me for evaluation and consultation only or because they are currently in treatment with me.

Please bear in mind that this is not a randomized, controlled study. The results I am posting are specific to my practice and my patients. They are not intended to be generalized to other clinicians or other patients. While many of my patients are referred to me by their pediatrician or psychiatrist, the majority of my patients are self-selecting. That is, their families researched their treatment options on their and chose to work with me for a specific reason. The self-selecting nature of many of these families also limits the generalizability of the results.

The sample described in this post contains 30 patients. These patients ranged in age from 10 – 37 (median age = 15). Eighty-three percent of these patients (n = 25) met criteria for restricting subtype (AN-R) and the remaining 17% (n = 5) met criteria for binge-purge subtype (AN-BP). Half of these patients (n = 15) had a co-morbid diagnosis, with the most common being Major Depressive Disorder and Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. Fifty-three percent of patients (n = 16) took some type of psychotropic medication during their treatment with me.

The patients varied widely in terms of length of illness and severity of symptoms. Duration of illness before intake ranged from 3 months to 21 years (median duration = 19 months). Importantly, these figures reflect the duration since the onset of illness, which is typically longer (and often much longer) than the duration since diagnosis. For the purpose of calculating duration of illness, onset of illness was defined as the period of time in which patient began engaging in behavioral symptoms of AN (e.g., restricting, compulsive exercise, purging) as reported by the patient and/or parents.

The majority of these patients arrived at my office with some history of treatment. Seventy percent of patients (n = 21) had already received some type of treatment before beginning therapy with me. As expected, most of those who were new to treatment had a much shorter duration of illness. One-third of patients (n = 10) had been hospitalized for their eating disorder or a related psychiatric issue (e.g., suicide attempt) prior to their evaluation with me. Seventeen percent of the patients (n = 5) had previously been in residential treatment and 27% (n = 8) had previously been in partial hospitalization, day treatment, or intensive outpatient treatment eating disorder treatment.

Duration of treatment with me ranged from one week to 48 months (median duration of treatment = 11 months). Number of treatment sessions with me ranged from 1 – 82. For those whose treatment lasted 18 months or longer, the duration of treatment can be explained by either a relapse after a period of remission or continued treatment to address a comorbid condition, such as anxiety or depression. Seventeen percent of patients (n = 5) had to be hospitalized during their treatment with me.

Prior to reporting end-of-treatment outcomes, it is important to clarify how I defined outcomes. I created the following definitions, each with specific criteria, in order to categorize patient outcomes:

1. Patient must meet ALL of the following criteria to be classified as in full remission:
a.) Patient is 100% weight-restored. Target weights were calculated based on patient’s individual historic growth chart and parent input. Patients under age 20 were expected to return to their historic percentiles for height, weight, and BMI. For patients age 20 and up, target weights were calculated based on the patient’s height, body build, weight history, menstrual history, and parental input (when available).
b.) Patient has started or resumed menstrual periods (for females ages 14 +).
c.) Patient is medically healthy.
d.) Complete abstinence from binge/purge behaviors, laxatives, and diet pills.
e.) Patient eats regular, balanced meals most of the time or always , as reported by patient and parent (when applicable)
f.) For children under 18 – child eats independently in an age-appropriate way most of the time or all of the time. For patients ages 18 and up, patient is able to eat independently while maintaining his/her weight.
g.) No more than mild preoccupation with food, weight, body image, or fear of weight gain

2. Patient is classified as in physical remission if he/she meets criteria a, b, c, d, and e under full remission, but does not meet criteria f or g under full remission. Essentially, a patient in physical remission is physically well and free of eating disorder behaviors, but cannot eat well independently, and/or continues to be preoccupied with thoughts about food, weight, and body image.

3. Patient is classified as having made significant progress if:
a.) Patient has made significant improvement in dietary habits (e.g., eats regular, balanced meals and snacks and has expanded the variety of foods he/she eats) as reported by patient and parents (when applicable)
b.) Patient has restored some weight and is at least 90% of ideal body weight (as defined in criterion a under full remission)
c.) Patient is medically healthy
d.) If patient has a history of bingeing, purging, laxatives, or diet pills, the frequency of these behaviors has been reduced to once per week or less.

4. Patient is classified as having made some progress if:
a.) Patient has improved dietary habits since intake, but needs more improvement
b.) Patient has restored some weight but remains more than 10% below target weight (as defined in criterion a under physical remission).
c.) Patient is a female age 14 or older but is not menstruating
d.) If patient has a history of bingeing, purging, laxatives, or diet pills, he/she has reduced the frequency of these behaviors since intake but still engages in them more than once per week.

5. Patient is classified as having made no progress if he/she has not improved dietary habits, has not restored any weight, and/or has not reduced the frequency of bingeing or compensatory behaviors.

6. Patient is classified as regressed if he/she meets ANY of the following criteria:
a.) Patient has lost weight since starting treatment
b.) Patient has been eating less since intake (in terms of frequency, quantity, and variety)
c.) Frequency of bingeing or compensatory behaviors has increased since intake
d.) Patient has become medically unstable

Fifty-seven percent of patients (n = 17) completed treatment and will be referred to as “treatment completers.” Treatment completers ranged in age from 10 – 24 at intake, with a median age of 14. Duration of treatment for treatment completers ranged from 2 months to 48 months (median duration = 15.5 months).

Ninety-four percent of treatment completers (n = 16) met criteria for full remission at end of treatment. The remaining 6% (n = 1) met criteria for physical remission at end of treatment. For the treatment completers, weight restoration was achieved in an average of 3 months (range = 1 – 7 months). Two of the treatment completers were fully weight-restored (though not in full remission) at the start of treatment with me, having already been in eating disorder treatment elsewhere.

Forty-three percent of patients (n = 13) did not complete treatment and will be referred to as “treatment non-completers.” Treatment non-completers ranged in age from 10 – 37, with a median age of 20. Duration of treatment for the non-completers ranged from one week to six months (median duration = 3 months). Of the treatment non-completers, I referred 23% (n = 3) to other providers because they required something I could not provide (e.g., residential treatment) or my treatment approach was not helping them. Fifteen percent of non-completers (n = 2) moved to other parts of the country during their treatment and thus were referred to other providers near their new homes. Sixty-two percent of treatment non-completers (n = 8) dropped out of treatment prematurely.

Of the treatment non-completers, 46% (n = 6) had made significant progress by their last session with me. Fifteen percent had made some progress, 23% (n = 3) had made no progress, and 15% (n = 2) had regressed.

Stay tuned for my next blog post, in which I will examine and interpret the differences between treatment completers and treatment non-completers.

Posted on

A Preview of My Treatment Outcome Data

As a scientist-practitioner, I am well aware that therapists aren’t always good at judging their patients’ outcomes. That’s why I love statistics. Numbers offer an objective, quantitative view. Numbers paint a clear picture that words cannot.

I believe strongly in evidence-based treatment. I also believe in therapist transparency – that is, that therapists should explain to patients and their families what interventions they are using, why they are using them, and what evidence is behind them.

For these reasons, I have chosen to collect data on my own patients and measure their response to treatment. I want prospective patients and their families to have access to these data to assist them in choosing a clinician. After four years in private practice, I have finally seen enough patients to collect treatment outcome data with a decent-sized sample. I am compiling these data for the purpose of improving the quality of my own practice. The results of my patients’ treatment outcomes are not intended to be used to generalize to other populations.

Since opening my practice in 2009, I have evaluated 138 patients. Eighty-nine percent (n = 123) of these patients were female and (n = 15) 11% were male. They ranged in age from 7-64, with a median age of 18 and a modal age of 15. The majority of patients were between the ages of 10 and 25.

The patients’ primary diagnoses were as follows:
• 54% (n = 75) had eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, and EDNOS
• 22% (n = 30) had mood disorders, such as major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder
• 10% (n = 14) had anxiety disorders, such as OCD or social anxiety disorder
• 8% (n = 11) did not meet criteria for any psychiatric disorder, but rather came to me for help with a specific problem, such as coping with parents’ divorce or stress management.
• 6% (n = 8) had an assortment of other primary diagnoses, including borderline personality disorder, adjustment disorder, or body dysmorphic disorder.

I work on a sliding scale based on the patient’s ability to pay. Sixty-three percent (n = 87) paid my full rate and 37% (N = 51) paid a reduced rate due to their financial circumstances (e.g., unemployment, low income, single parent supporting children alone, or college student paying for his/her own treatment). I saw 16% of these patients (n = 22) for evaluation and/or consultation only. The remaining 84% (n = 116) attended at least one treatment session with me.

All former patients who attended at least one treatment session with me are included in this sample. In addition, four patients who have completed their treatment but have opted to continue seeing me two or three times per year for “check-ups” were included as well. Patients who are currently in treatment with me were not included.

Over the next few weeks, I will be blogging about the end-of-treatment outcomes of my former patients, categorized by primary diagnosis. I am also in the process of conducting a follow-up study, and I hope to publish those data by the end of the summer. All data will be reported in aggregate form so that no individual patients will be identifiable.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard in treatment outcome research. However, other types of studies can be quite useful as well. My study tells a different story from the RCTs – the story of clinical practice in the “real world,” with all of the freedoms and confounds that come with it. While I do use evidence-based treatments such as Family-Based Treatment (FBT) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), I frequently make modifications to the manualized form of treatment based on the needs of the individual patient and family.

In addition, rather than fitting all patients into a 10-session or 20-session protocol, the length of treatment varied based on individual needs. Essentially, patients could stay in treatment until they were completely well. Insurance constraints were not an issue, as I don’t participate on insurance panels, and finances were not a deterrent from completing treatment, as I am very flexible with my sliding scale.

So what do treatment outcomes look like in the real world? You’ll have to keep reading my blog to find out!

Posted on

Navigating Phase III

Last week, I blogged about navigating Phase II of Maudsley Family-Based Treatment (FBT). Today I present a roadmap for Phase III, which is equal to Phase II in its importance as well as its ambiguity.

A common but ill-informed criticism of FBT is that it only addresses eating and weight. This is a misconception. Phase I focuses on establishing normal eating habits and restoring normal weight and Phase II focuses on helping the patient eat on her own in an age-appropriate way, but Phase III has nothing to do with food or weight at all. A wonderful thing about FBT is that the life-threatening eating disordered behaviors are treated first, which frees up the therapist, the patient, and the family to focus on any remaining issues in Phase III.

The goal of Phase III is establishing a healthy adolescent identity. An eating disorder engulfs an adolescent’s identity, creates extreme stress for the entire family, and strains the relationships between family members. Phase III is about restoring healthy, age-appropriate family relationships and returning the adolescent to normal life. Anything that stands in the way of these goals must be dealt with in order for the patient to recover fully.

Phase III begins when the patient is able to eat normally, with age-appropriate independence, while maintaining a healthy weight and not engaging in any eating disorder behaviors. Essentially, once all food issues have been resolved, the patient is ready for Phase III.

The authors of the FBT manual (Locke & Le Grange, 2001) advise that Phase III entails a handful of sessions scheduled several weeks apart. In my clinical experience, many patients do quite well with just a few sessions in Phase III, but others continue to struggle with anxiety, depression, body image, perfectionism, or other problems. Therefore, I offer to provide patients and families with an extended version of Phase III when I believe it is warranted. Length of illness, severity of illness, and co-morbid conditions all influence whether a patient may benefit from more treatment than the FBT manual prescribes.

In my practice, Phase III typically addresses the following issues:

1.) Returning the patient to normal development.

An eating disorder can interrupt normal adolescent development. Often, when a patient enters Phase III, she is at the same developmental level as when the illness first began. Phase III entails helping the patient develop the maturity and social-emotional skills that were lost as a casualty of ED. Depending on the age of the patient, this may entail returning to sports or other activities, getting a driver’s license, going out with friends, dating, returning to college, or developing new hobbies and interests.

2.) Re-establishing healthy relationships amongst family members.

An eating disorder can wreak havoc on family life. It is not uncommon for spouses to have major marital conflict emerge as a result of ED. Siblings may feel neglected by their parents or jealous of the patient. The patient and her parents may develop a codependent relationship over the course of treatment, which can be advantageous in the first two phases, but must be corrected in Phase III so that the patient and parent can each return to their own lives. Healthy boundaries amongst family members can be damaged by ED, and it is crucial for these boundaries to be re-established at the end of treatment.

3.) Addressing any remaining psychological symptoms of the eating disorder.

There are numerous psychological symptoms related to an eating disorder. For example, body dysmorphia, perfectionism, poor self-esteem, anxiety, and cognitive rigidity may predispose people to AN and perpetuate the illness once it has begun. For many patients, these symptoms abate or resolve on their own during the first two phases. For many others, however, targeted treatment is needed at this phase. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) can be helpful in this regard.

4.) Working through the trauma of experiencing an eating disorder.

While many treatment programs address traumatic experiences that precipitated an eating disorder, few acknowledge that the experience of having eating disorder is itself very traumatic. Caring for a child with an eating disorder can be almost as traumatic as experiencing one. In many cases, the patient or her parents (or both) experience post-traumatic stress reactions at this point, such as disturbing nightmares, intrusive memories, and avoidance of stimuli associated with the eating disorder.

It is not uncommon for parents, drained and burnt out from the exhausting work of Phase I and Phase II, to have their own breakdowns at this point. Their child is well enough that they are no longer operating in crisis mode and they have some room to breathe. Once the survival instinct is no longer employed on a constant basis, parents have permission to experience their own reactions. Some parents fall into a depression; others feel disillusioned and cynical; still others suffer from extreme anxiety or lash out in anger. These are all normal, expected reactions to the trauma of almost losing a child. It is important for parents to get their own therapeutic support at this juncture if needed.

5.) Addressing grief.

Another often neglected aspect of eating disorder treatment is grieving what the eating disorder has taken. Not all patients and families experience this grief, but some do. I believe that when there is grief associated with the eating disorder, it should be discussed openly and addressed as part of the healing process. Patients often lose friends to their illness. They may have to take a hiatus from their favorite sport, or give it up altogether. Some patients miss a semester of school. Most are isolated from society for some time. At this stage, patients can feel the pain and injustice of losing a piece of their youth irretrievably.

Some parents may mourn the loss of their child’s innocence. They mourn the loss of life as they knew it. Many parents take time off from work and become isolated from their social circle as they help their child recover. Some parents mourn the loss of dreams they once had for their child which have been thwarted by ED.

No one emerges from the hell of an eating disorder unscathed. That said, some people are able to close that chapter in their lives and move forward, whereas others remain trapped by anger, sadness, or bitterness. It is important for patients and parents to work through their grief so that they can move forward in a life unencumbered by ED.

6.) Relapse prevention.

It is important for the patient and her parents to be aware of possible signs of impending relapse and to know what to do if these signs emerge. I find it very useful to discharge patients with a written relapse prevention plan which I have developed in collaboration with the patient and family.

7.) Evaluating the patient for co-morbid conditions.

Many patients with eating disorders experience co-morbid psychiatric conditions. Patients who continue to struggle with emotional or behavioral problems after the eating disorder has been resolved should be evaluated to determine whether they suffer from a comorbid disorder. The most common comorbid disorders are the anxiety disorders (including OCD, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, PTSD, and social anxiety disorder), followed closely by mood disorders (depression and bipolar disorder). Other comorbid conditions may include autism spectrum disorders (such as Asperger’s), ADHD, substance abuse, and personality disorders.

8.) Getting the patient appropriate treatment for co-morbid conditions.

If the patient does indeed suffer from a co-morbid condition, it is important for her to get treatment for it. Treatment for a co-morbid disorder may include individual therapy, psychotropic medication, or a combination thereof. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) in particular has been found to help many people recover from anxiety disorders, mood disorders, and numerous other conditions.

Posted on

Navigating Phase II

There is a common misconception that Maudsley Family-Based Treatment (FBT) is all about parental control of feeding. While Phase I of FBT does require parents to take control of their ill child’s food intake to help her restore her weight, FBT also encompasses two other very important phases. In Phase II, parents return control over eating to their child as she demonstrates readiness to eat on her own. Phase III involves helping the adolescent return to normal development and establish a healthy identity.

Weight restoration is an essential first step in overcoming AN, but it is only the first step. Equally important is the ability to feed oneself properly and maintain a healthy weight independently. Without the ability to eat independently, opportunities are limited and quality of life is greatly diminished. Recovery from an eating disorder is about more than just restoring a healthy body – it is also about restoring a healthy mind and a fulfilling life.

Phase I tends to be the most tumultuous and draining for the family and the most agonizing for the patient, but the task at hand is very straight-forward: eat more and gain weight.

Phase II, however, is much more ambiguous. Parents and clinicians struggle to determine when a patient is ready to begin Phase II. The patient herself may send mixed signals – she may beg for the freedom to eat lunch in the school cafeteria and go out to dinner with her friends, but yet she is clearly unable to take a single bite of food that isn’t “required” and “supervised.” To outsiders, the patient seems normal – she looks healthy, she acts more or less like a typical teenager (in between mealtimes, at least), but appearances belie the still-raging battle in her head. Still tormented by the anorexic thoughts and compulsions, she feels torn between a wish to return to the safety of emaciation and a desire to dive headlong into the normal life she has been missing.

I use the following benchmarks to help families determine when their child is ready to enter Phase II:

• The patient has been fully weight restored to his/her historic growth curve (per pediatric growth chart percentiles) for at least a few weeks. While the FBT manual (Locke & Le Grange, 2001) recommends beginning Phase II when the patient is at 90% of her ideal body weight, I have found that the vast majority of patients are not ready for any control over their food intake until they achieve 100% of their ideal body weight. In my experience, many patients need to maintain their ideal body weight for a number of months before they are ready to enter Phase II.

• The patient’s metabolism has normalized to the point that she no longer requires a very high-calorie diet. It is hard enough for the patient to feed herself a normal meal – don’t make it even harder by expecting her to serve herself very high calorie meals.

• The patient is no longer engaging in eating disorder behaviors such as restricting, bingeing, purging, or excessive exercise.

• The patient is eating all of the food her parents provide her, in a reasonable amount of time, without much fear or resistance. [NOTE: the patient will still have some anxiety around eating at this point – that is to be expected. The point is that the patient needs to be able to push through that anxiety and eat what she needs without a struggle.]

• The family is no longer operating in “crisis mode.” The parents feel confident that they can help their child defeat the eating disorder, and the child has accepted that her parents have taken charge.

• The patient expresses readiness to assume some control over her eating and confidence that she can feed herself appropriately. [NOTE: Many patients express a desire to regain control over their eating long before they are actually ready. This premature push for independence may be partially motivated by a normal adolescent drive for freedom, but it may also be motivated by ED’s desire to restrict and lose weight. Therefore, it is a mistake to use the child’s expressed readiness as the sole criteria for entering Phase II. Rather, you want to look for the child’s expressed readiness in addition to the previous criteria.]

Here are some general principles I discuss with families to help them navigate the uneasy waters of Phase II:

• Have a vision.

I like to begin Phase II with a vision of how the patient’s life will look at the end of Phase II. By the end of Phase II, the patient needs to be able eat on her own while maintaining her weight, in an age appropriate way, in the context of her family and her normal life. All patients, regardless of age, will enter Phase II eating in the same way – with parents in control of what, when, and how much they are eating. However, the end goal of Phase II is different for a 10-year-old than for a 16-year-old or a 22-year-old. A good frame of reference in creating your vision for Phase II is to look at the amount of autonomy the patient’s friends have with regards to their eating.

For example, by the end of Phase II, a pre-teen patient should be able to eat lunch with her friends in the cafeteria at school, order from a restaurant menu, select her own after-school snack and eat it without supervision. She should be able to have a few meals and snacks at a friend’s house during a sleep-over, or spend the day away from her parents on a field trip. She should still share meals with her family each day and eat what the family is eating.

By the end of Phase II, a high-school age patient should be able to prepare a simple breakfast and lunch for herself when needed, serve herself appropriate portions at dinner, eat a meal on occasion without her parents present (for example, dinner on her own if her parents are out for the evening), and go out to eat with friends. Regular family meals are still important for teenagers so that parents can keep an eye on their child’s eating behavior, even when the teen is eating many of her meals and snacks on her own. A young adult patient who is preparing for independent living should be able to plan her menu, shop for groceries, cook for herself, and eat without parental supervision.

• Take baby steps, go very slowly, and accept that this Phase will take a long time.

In my experience, Phase II usually takes somewhere between 3-12 months, depending on the severity of illness and other individual differences.

• Accept and embrace the fact that Phase II poses an inherent risk.

Like many things in life, giving a recovering anorexic more control over her food intake involves some degree of risk. It is likely that the patient will experience struggles and setbacks during Phase II. Try to learn and grow from these slips, and help her do the same. Keep in mind that you can, to some degree, manage the amount of risk involved by ensuring that the patient is genuinely ready before starting Phase II, monitoring her closely over the course of this phase, and stepping in to help her when needed. I liken this process to helping a baby learn to walk. You wait until she is confident in her crawling. Of course she will stumble and fall, but she will grow stronger each time she pulls herself back up. And you can provide her with a soft, carpeted surface on which to practice her steps.

• Have the patient practice choosing and preparing her food under supervision before she is permitted to eat unsupervised.

I typically start Phase II by having the patient choose and prepare one snack each day under parental supervision. The parents observe the child’s food selection and gently guide her in the right direction if needed. For example, let’s say the child chooses crackers with peanut butter and puts 4 crackers with a thin coating of peanut butter on each one. The parent may say: “That’s an excellent, balanced choice, but it’s not quite enough nutrition. Let’s put three more crackers on the plate and add more peanut butter.”

I usually require a patient to have at least a week of consistent success preparing a meal/snack under supervision before moving on to the next meal/snack.

• Be systematic.

I typically coach patients to proceed through Phase II by giving back control of one meal or snack at a time and allowing the child to gain mastery of each meal/snack before moving on to the next one. For example, the child may begin Phase II by assuming control of her own after-school snack, while parents maintain control of all other meals and snacks.

• Assess progress regularly.

The patient should be weighed weekly during this phase, and family members should keep tabs on her mental state and behavior daily. If she is maintaining her weight within her healthy range, and her mood and behavior around food are good, then it is time to move forward to more independence. If her weight drops, or if she demonstrates an increase in eating disorder behaviors (even in the absence of weight loss), then it is time for parents to take back more control of her food intake.

• Take back control when necessary.

Nearly every patient has a few setbacks during this Phase. It is the parents’ responsibility, with the guidance of their clinician, to take back more control over the patient’s food when she has not been able to manage eating on her own. The step backwards is a temporary measure to help her get back on track, and she will regain control when she demonstrates readiness.

• Some patients need a gentle nudge to move forward.

While many patients are all too eager to take back control over their food intake, some become overly dependent on their parents to feed them and have great difficulty moving forward. This makes sense in light of the nature of AN – being fed by your parents is a passive process which does not involve taking personal responsibility. The “ED voice” quiets down after several months of full nutrition, and the patient is able to eat well without too much guilt when she is being “forced.” The acts of preparing one’s own food, deciding what to order from a restaurant menu, or choosing whether to have a snack when no one is watching – these are all acts of defiance against the “ED voice.” Patients are flooded with anxiety, indecisiveness, and guilt when the time comes to make these choices. It is a scary step for parents and patients alike. Some patients require lots of encouragement to become more independent with their eating. I find that it is often helpful to remind the patient of the benefits of being able to eat independently, such as spending more time with friends and doing other activities away from home. Some younger patients respond well to concrete, short-term rewards for eating independently. For example, a 6th grader who successfully manages her afternoon snack every day for a week without weight loss may be rewarded with a trip to the movies.

• Be realistic.

Many parents lament that their recovering child no longer goes out for ice cream on a whim or breezes into the kitchen to grab a few cookies or gives herself generous second helpings of her favorite meals. I advise parents that it is unrealistic to expect a recovering anorexic to eat freely or spontaneously. Some people who have recovered from AN are eventually able to eat intuitively, but not until they have been well for at least a year or two.

• Don’t force Phase II into an external timeline.

Don’t rush through this phase just so that the patient can eat lunch with her friends when the school year starts go away to college at the same time as all of her friends. The only timeline that matters is the patient’s recovery timeline, which may or may not be convenient for her (or you). Each person’s recovery moves forward at a different pace.

• Remember that whatever happens is simply feedback, not failure.

Keep in mind that the patient will probably struggle quite a bit at first. Re-learning how to feed oneself properly after a bout of AN is a very difficult task. If a patient is not able to take charge of a meal or snack, that says nothing about her character or her effort or her prognosis for recovery. It simply means that she is not ready for that step yet. Expect the patient to make mistakes, and be there to help her correct them without blame or judgment. Remember that she is doing the best she can.

• Keep things in perspective.

As challenging as Phase II can be, don’t lose sight of how far the patient has come. She is eating well, she is at a healthy weight, she is medically stable, and she is in effective treatment. In the long run, it doesn’t matter whether someone breezes through Phase II or whether it takes over a year – she’s safe, she’s physically healthy, and she will recover eventually.

Posted on

Show Me The Science

The debate over evidence-based practice (also known as empirically-supported treatment) in psychology is contentious and polarizing. Evidence-based practice, as defined by the APA, is “the integration of the best available research with clinical expertise in the context of patient characteristics, culture and preferences.” The debate over evidence-based practice can be summarized as follows:

Proponents of evidence-based treatment argue that clinical psychologists are scientists, that psychotherapy is (or should be) based upon scientific theory, and therefore therapists must use the best available scientific evidence in their practice of psychotherapy. They argue that the public must be protected from therapies which are not evidence-based, as such therapies may be ineffective or harmful.

Opponents of the evidence-based practice movement argue that psychotherapy is an art rather than a science, and that the essence of what they do – the “human element” – cannot possibly be manualized or subjected to clinical trials. Opponents are typically therapists who practice relationship- or insight-oriented approaches. They see their work as diametrically opposed to the principals of evidence-based practice.

I understand and appreciate the arguments of the opponents, and I do believe they have some valid points. However, I have established my professional identity as a strong proponent of evidence-based treatment.

When you visit a physician for an illness and she prescribes a medication, you can safely assume that the medication has been FDA-approved for your particular illness, that it is likely to be effective, and that it is unlikely to seriously harm you.

Imagine the following scenario: Drug A was used to treat Illness X twenty years ago. Then, ten years ago, clinical studies showed that Drug B is significantly more effective than Drug A in treating illness X. A physician, Dr. Dolittle, continues to prescribe Drug A for Illness X because he really believes it works, and because he was taught that Drug A works well when he was a medical student 20 years ago. Dr. Dolittle does not inform his patients that Drug B exists, because he doesn’t believe it will work for them and he has no experience with it.

The scenario described above would not happen in medicine, would it? And if it did happen, Dr. Dolittle would be reprimanded by the medical board and may have his license revoked.

Believe it or not, this scenario happens in psychology all the time. Most people outside the field would be shocked to learn that the majority of psychological treatment out there is NOT evidence-based.

I have seen patients who underwent years of psychodynamic therapy for severe depression, without getting any better, without being told about cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) and without being referred to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation. I have seen patients with anxiety disorders whose psychiatrists have prescribed multiple medications for them, never once referring them for psychological treatment, without ever mentioning that CBT at least as effective, if not more so, than medication for most anxiety disorders. I have seen patients who suffered from eating disorders for many years, who have seen many therapists, who have had multiple stints in residential treatment and have taken numerous medications, but were never restored to their ideal body weight and never provided with the support they needed to eat properly. And finally, a substantial portion of my case load is comprised of teenagers with eating disorders who have experienced months or years of ineffective, non-evidence-based treatment. The families of these teenagers were never informed about Family-Based Treatment (FBT), which is the only empirically-supported treatment for adolescents with eating disorders. Their parents discovered FBT on their own through desperate late-night internet searches.

These patients are pleasantly surprised to see how quickly and dramatically they improve with evidence-based treatment. They are also angry that they were not provided with, or at least informed about, effective treatment from the start. I believe that all patients and their families deserve to be fully informed about the range of different treatment options available to them, including evidence-based treatment. I do believe that there is a place for non-evidence based treatment, but patients and families should know from the outset what they are getting.

Evidence-based practice is not about using treatment manuals verbatim, or only relying upon randomized clinical trials. Treatment manuals are necessary for research and dissemination, but they are not intended to be followed verbatim with every patient in the real world. Manuals don’t treat patients – they merely provide a guide and a plan of action which may be revised and altered as needed for each unique patient. The basic principles and techniques of the treatment are the brick and mortar; the details of each room can and should be tailored to the individual.

Clinical psychology is a science, but it is not as precise as the so-called “hard sciences” like physics or mathematics. The brain is too intricate; human behavior too complex to be boiled down to immutable formulas. There is, and always will be, room for intuition, creativity, spontaneity, and that intangible “human element” that cannot be manualized or subjected to laboratory research. But the evidence base is there, so we owe it to our patients and to our profession to use it. Otherwise, we are no better than Dr. Dolittle.

Posted on

Got Hope?

“I’ve been in therapy for 18 years, and I’ve still got a pretty significant case of Anorexia.”

Recently, these words were uttered to me over the phone by an adult with Anorexia Nervosa (AN) who was desperate for help. A successful professional and devoted mother to three young daughters, she, like so many who suffer from AN, seems to “have it all.” Her husband was aware of her illness – he had attended a few therapy sessions – but it was never discussed openly. Although he was terrified that she would die, he had no idea how to help her. In fact, he had been advised by her former treatment providers that he should not try to “fix” her – that was her job. Like most men, he was begging for something concrete, a specific job to do, something to latch onto and work towards to help save his precious wife.

“I know my life inside and out,” this woman told me. “I have so much insight. It just hasn’t gotten any better.”

If someone has been in therapy for 18 years – or even 18 weeks – there should be marked, measurable improvement. Even 18 days into treatment, there should be something concrete – a written treatment plan, psycho-education for the patient and family, recommendations of reading materials and resources, development of specific goals. There should be hope. Psychotherapy research has shown that the instillation of hope – which is one common factor present in all types of psychological treatment – is the predominant mechanism of change in the first few weeks of treatment.

If someone who is suffering from a life-threatening, soul-killing mental illness for 18 years without making any improvement, where is the hope? How can someone possibly have hope that their condition will improve when they have been dutifully going to therapy with eating disorder experts for almost two decades? In the amount of time it takes to raise a child from birth through high school graduation, there has been no measurable change. Can you imagine such an interminable, grueling, agonizing battle?

In these chronic cases, inevitably the patient begins to blame herself. Her family, once supportive and nurturing, becomes paralyzed with guilt and fear, with anger and frustration. They, too, lose hope.

Let me tell you this: if you have been in treatment for 18 years, 18 months, even 18 weeks, and your condition has not improved, TREATMENT HAS FAILED YOU. No matter how long you have suffered, no matter how many treatment programs you’ve been through, or how many therapists you have seen, or how many relationships have been destroyed by this horrific illness, THERE IS HOPE.

New science offers hope for people with AN. We know so much more now than we did even 5 years ago. This new knowledge is power – it is ammunition against even the most severe, chronic, “treatment resistant” cases.

If you have been in treatment for a significant period of time without improvement, please do not blame yourself. It is your treatment team’s job to help you get well. Even if you don’t want it. Even if your motivation wavers. Even if you are ambivalent about change. These feelings are symptoms of the illness, and you deserve treatment regardless. If your therapist is kind and warm and empathic and you have wonderful relationship, that is terrific – but these things alone will not get you well.

You need a treatment team that will stand up to AN; a team that will insist upon prompt nutritional restoration, achievement of your optimally healthy body weight, cessation of eating disorder behaviors, skills to cope with unhealthy thoughts and negative emotions, and treatment of any comorbid psychiatric conditions.

If your clinicians have not been able to help you, I beg you, I implore you, to find a second opinion. Find a third, fourth, fifth opinion if needed. You deserve effective treatment, and you need something concrete – a specific plan – to help you reach full recovery.