Posted on

Correlates of Treatment Outcome for Patients With Mood Disorders

In my last blog post, I described end-of treatment outcomes for patients with mood disorders. Here, I will elaborate on factors that were correlated with treatment outcome for these patients. Please be advised that these results are specific to my practice and my patients, and should not necessarily be generalized to other clinicians or populations.

Diagnosis
Type of mood disorder diagnosis was strongly correlated with treatment outcome. Patients with Depressive Disorder NOS (DDNOS; n = 3) fared best. Two-thirds of these patients (n = 2) completed treatment and achieved full remission. The remaining one-third (n = 1) attended treatment for two months and made significant progress before quitting prematurely.

Patients with Mood Disorder NOS (MDNOS; n = 4) had varying outcomes. Half of them (n = 2) completed treatment; of these, one achieved full remission and the other made significant progress. Of the remaining MDNOS patients, one quit prematurely after making some progress and the other regressed and was referred to a higher level of care.

Both of the patients in this sample with Dysthymic Disorder also had a diagnosis of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). For statistical purposes, I am subsuming these individuals under the category of MDD, as that is the more severe of the two diagnoses. Patients with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD; n = 11) had varying outcomes. Eighteen percent (n = 2) completed treatment and achieved full remission; 9% (n = 1) quit treatment after making significant progress; 45% (n = 5) either quit treatment or moved away after making some progress; and 27% (n = 3) were referred to other providers.

The presence of both dysthymic disorder and MDD (n = 2) did not have a consistent impact on treatment outcome – one of these individuals completed treatment and achieved full remission, while the other regressed and was referred to a higher level of care.

None of the patients with bipolar disorder (n = 3) completed treatment or achieved full remission. However, one of the patients with bipolar disorder remained in treatment for over a year and made significant progress, but was eventually referred to another treatment provider to address other treatment needs.

Comorbidity
Presence of a co-morbid diagnosis was a negative prognostic factor. Only 18% (n = 2) of the patients with comorbid disorders completed treatment, and only 9% (n = 1) achieved full remission, while the remaining 9% (n = 1) made significant progress. In contrast, 40% (n = 4) of patients without a comorbid diagnosis completed treatment, and all of these patients achieved full remission.

Medication
Patients who did not take psychiatric medication during treatment with me were more likely to make progress in treatment and more likely to achieve remission than those who took psychiatric medication. All of the patients who did not take medication (n = 8) made at least some progress in treatment. In contrast, 30% of those who took medication either made no progress (n = 2) or regressed (n = 2) during treatment. Half of the patients who did not take medication (n = 4) achieved remission by the end of treatment, compared to 8% (n = 1) of those who took medication.

My hypothesis is that patients who took medication had poorer outcomes not because their medication didn’t work or made them worse, but rather because taking medication is confounded with severity of mood disorder and with comorbidity. In other words, those with more severe mood disorders and/or comorbid conditions were more likely to require medication in order to function, whereas those with mild to moderate mood disorders were less likely to need medication.

Age and Family Involvement
Younger age was a significant predictor of treatment completion. Patients who completed treatment ranged in age from 16 – 29, with an average age of 19.7. Those who did not complete treatment ranged in age from 12 – 59, with an average age of 28.6.

Being under 18 years old was a protective factor. None of the adolescents under 18 quit treatment prematurely. Of the 6 adolescents in this sample, 50% (n = 3) completed treatment and attained full remission, 33% (n = 2) were referred to other treatment settings after a year or more of treatment with me due to other needs, and the remaining 16% (n = 1) engaged in treatment as a 17-year-old and made some progress, but quit shortly after his 18th birthday. I suspect that the high level of parental involvement that I require for adolescent patients is the primary reason why they are likely to remain in treatment and have positive outcomes. In addition, younger patients tend to have shorter duration of illness compared to adult patients, and early intervention is also predictive of positive outcome.

For patients over 18, family involvement often included spouses and significant others instead of parents, based on the patient’s living situation and relationship status. Sixty percent (n = 9) of the patients over 18 in this sample had no family involvement whatsoever, 27% (n = 4) had a low level of family involvement, and 13% (n = 2) had a moderate level of family involvement. None of the patients over 18 had a high level of family involvement.

Importantly, amongst the adults in this sample, family involvement was not necessary in order to make progress in treatment or attain remission. None of the adults who attained full remission (n = 2) had family members involved in their treatment. Likewise, 67% (n = 2) of the adults who made significant progress in treatment had a low level of family involvement and 33% (n = 1) had no family involvement at all.

None of the patients over age 30 (n = 5) completed treatment. I hypothesize that there are several reasons for this: 1.) Older patients had a longer duration of illness, which means that their illness was more entrenched and more difficult to treat; 2.) The majority of these patients (80%; n = 4) had no family support at all; 3.) All of these older patients paid reduced rates for my services, which indicates that they were of lower socio-economic status, and which may suggest that they value my services less than those who pay full price; 4.) I saw all of these patients during my post-doctoral year, when I was less experienced and not yet fully licensed. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the quality of my services was somewhat lower back then than it is now that I am fully licensed and more experienced; and 5.) I prefer working with child and adolescent patients and find that I tend to be more effective with them. For these reasons, particularly #5, I no longer treat adult patients beyond their mid-twenties.

Gender
Average duration of treatment was comparable for males and females (6.8 months vs 7.4 months, respectively). Rates of remission were similar between males and females. Twenty percent (n = 1) of males completed treatment and achieved remission, compared with 25% (n = 4) of females. However, amongst those who did not achieve remission, females were more likely to make significant progress than males. Twenty-five percent (n = 4) of females made significant progress, compared with none of the males.

Hospitalization
Hospitalization during treatment with me predicted regression in treatment. Of the patients who were hospitalized during treatment with me, 67% (n = 2) had regressed by the end of their treatment with me. In contrast, none of the patients who were not hospitalized during treatment had regressed as of their final session with me.

I hypothesize that patients who remained out of the hospital during treatment with me were responding well to treatment, which would explain why they were more likely to achieve remission or at least make significant progress. In contrast, being hospitalized during treatment may have been an indication that the patient was not responding well to treatment, which explains why they were likely regressed as of their last session with me.

Surprisingly, history of hospitalization before entering treatment with me was not related to outcome. Of the 8 patients who had been hospitalized previously, 25% (n = 2) achieved remission, 25% (n = 2) made significant progress, 38% (n = 3) made some progress, and only 12% (n = 1) regressed in treatment with me. These percentages are comparable to those of the 13 patients who had not been hospitalized before beginning treatment with me: 23% (n = 3) achieved remission, 15% (n = 2) made significant progress, 38% (n = 5) made some progress, 15% made no progress, and 8% (n = 1) regressed.

I would have suspected that history of hospitalization would be confounded with illness severity, and therefore would predict poor treatment outcome. However, it is possible that the individuals who had been hospitalized before entering treatment with me had not been given appropriate outpatient treatment, hence the escalation of illness need for hospitalization. Perhaps these patients were able to benefit from their treatment with me, and it is possible that, in some cases, hospitalization could have been avoided if they had received effective outpatient treatment sooner.

Attendance at Therapy Sessions
Attendance at therapy sessions was correlated with treatment retention as well as treatment outcome. Sixty-seven percent (n = 4) of those who completed treatment attended all of their appointments, while the remaining 33% (n = 2) had only one missed appointment. Eighty percent of patients who attained full remission (n = 4) had perfect attendance in therapy; the remaining 20% (n = 1) missed only one appointment. None of the patients who missed more than one appointment completed treatment or achieved full remission.

I suspect this relates to the old adage: “You get out of it what you put into it.” A patient who frequently misses appointments probably places little value on their mental health, which may explain why they tended to drop out of treatment prematurely. Those who were diligent about their treatment prioritized their mental health and worked hard in therapy. Those who were conscientious and responsible about attendance were, most likely, conscientious and responsible about completing therapy homework, taking their medication consistently, and making positive life choices in general. Thus, it is natural that these individuals had better treatment outcomes.

Fee for Services
Payment of full fee for services was a predictor of treatment completion and achieving full remission. Sixty-seven percent of patients (n = 2) who paid my full rate completed treatment, compared with only 22% of patients (n = 4) who paid a reduced rate. Given that so few patients in this sample paid my full rate (n = 3), it is difficult to draw any conclusions about how these individuals differ from those who pay a lower rate.

However, in my practice, the correlation between payment of full services and better treatment outcome has been consistent across diagnoses, regardless of the number of clients in the sample. As I have noted in recent posts, individuals who pay lower fees are, by definition, of lower socio-economic status (SES). These individuals may have more financial stressors than those of higher SES, and may have other life obstacles in general (limited access to healthcare, transportation difficulties, unemployment, single parent families) which interfered with their ability to progress in treatment.

In addition, those who pay reduced rates were much more likely than those who pay full rate to no-show for sessions or to cancel at the last minute. This finding suggests to me that, on average, individuals who paid reduced fees placed less personal value on their sessions, had less respect for my time, did not prioritize their recovery, and/or were generally irresponsible, compared with individuals who paid full rate.

Posted on

End of Treatment Outcomes for Patients with Mood Disorders

Since opening my practice in 2009, I have evaluated 30 patients with mood disorders. Former patients who attended at least one treatment session with me following their evaluation were included in this sample. Patients who are currently in treatment with me were not included in this sample. As you read, please bear in mind that these data are specific to my practice and my patients, and should not be generalized to other therapists or other patient populations.

The 21 patients in this sample had a range of different mood disorder diagnoses. The most common diagnosis was Major Depressive Disorder (43%; n = 9). Other mood disorder diagnoses included Mood Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (19%; n = 4), Depressive Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (14%; n = 3), Bipolar Disorder (14%; n = 3), and Dysthymia (10%; n = 2). Approximately one quarter of the sample (24%) was male.

Patients ranged in age from 12 to 59, with a median age of 21. Most of these patients had been suffering from their mood disorder for years before beginning treatment with me, and most had received some sort of psychological or psychiatric treatment in the past. Duration of illness prior to intake ranged from 1 month to 35 years, with an average duration of 8.4 years. These figures reflect the length of time since symptoms began, which is usually substantially earlier than diagnosis.

Many mood disorders, such as Major Depressive Disorder and Bipolar Disorder, tend to be episodic, characterized by periods of remission and periods of relapse. Thus, the “duration of illness prior to treatment” figures reflect the total length of time from the onset of first symptoms to the initial session with me. Many patients had periods of mild or absent symptoms and good functioning in between mood disorder episodes.

Most of the patients in this sample had relatively severe forms of mood disorders. Thirty-eight percent of them (n = 8) had been hospitalized for a suicide attempt, suicidal gesture, or related psychiatric issue prior to beginning treatment with me, and many of these individuals had been hospitalized multiple times. Fourteen percent of patients (n = 3) had to be hospitalized during the course of their treatment with me.

This sample was ethnically diverse, comprised of 43% White Hispanic, 43% White Non-Hispanic, 10% multi-racial, and 4% Black Hispanic. The majority of patients in this sample (86%; n = 18) paid a reduced fee for my services; only 14% (n = 3) paid my full rate. Thus, most of these patients were of lower socio-economic status and/or were college students responsible for supporting themselves.

Approximately half of the sample (52%; n = 11) had a comorbid psychiatric disorder. The most common comorbid diagnoses were Anxiety Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (14%; n = 3) and Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (14%; n = 3).

The patients in this sample received various types of treatment, depending on their age and symptoms. Nearly half of the patients in this sample (48%; n = 10) received Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Patients whose illnesses were characterized by impulsivity and self-harm received a Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) skills-based approach (38%; n = 8). Patients with milder symptoms and social difficulties received supportive counseling focused on self-care and interpersonal relationships (14%; n = 3). Sixty-two percent of patients (n = 13) were also seeing a psychiatrist and taking psychotropic medication during their treatment with me.

The level of family involvement in a patient’s treatment varied based upon his or her age, symptoms, and preferences as well as logistics. In this sample, 43% (n = 9) of patients had no family involvement, 19% (n = 4) had a low level of family involvement, 19% (n = 4) had a moderate level of family involvement, and 19% (n = 4) had a high level of family involvement.

I require the parents of all patients under 18 to be fully informed and actively involved in their child’s treatment. Therefore, all patients under 18 in this sample had moderate to high degrees of family involvement in treatment. This means that the patient’s parents participated fully in the evaluation and treatment planning, and participated in a portion of most therapy sessions (e.g., the last 10 minutes of each session) for the purposes of providing feedback, setting goals, and evaluating progress. These parents also had regular access to me via phone and email for the purpose of sharing information about their child and asking questions. For patients over age 18, family members were involved as appropriate, as needed, and as requested by the patient. For example, many college-aged patients had parents involved in their treatment, particularly when it came to issues of psychiatric consultation and hospitalization.

Patients in this sample attended between 1 and 96 sessions, with a mean of 19 sessions. Duration of treatment ranged from 1 month and 39 months, with a mean duration of 7 months. In other words, the typical mood disorder patient attended 19 sessions over the course of 7 months.

Twenty-nine percent of patients (n = 6) completed treatment and 38% (n = 8) quit treatment prematurely. I referred twenty-four percent of patients (n = 5) to other treatment providers who could better meet their needs, and 9% of patients (n = 2) moved to other geographic locations during their treatment and were referred to other providers near their new homes.

Patients who completed treatment attended between 1 and 96 sessions, with an average of 23 sessions. Duration of treatment for those who completed treatment ranged from 1 to 39 months, with an average duration of 11 months. Thus, it typically took approximately 23 sessions over the course of 11 months to complete treatment.

Each patient was given an end-of-treatment rating which describes their state as of their final session with me, regardless of the reason why treatment ended.

• Patients were classified as being in “full remission” if they had not experienced any symptoms of their mood disorder within the past two weeks, and their social / occupational / academic functioning were good.

• Patients were classified as having made “significant progress” if their mood disorder symptoms over the past two weeks were substantially less severe, less frequent, and less intense than at intake, but were still occurring, and their social / occupational / academic functioning were relatively good.

• Patients were classified as having made “some progress” if their symptoms over the past two weeks were somewhat less severe and less frequent than at intake, and if their social / occupational / academic functioning were fair.

• Patients were classified as having made “no progress” if the frequency, intensity, and duration of symptoms had not improved since intake, and social / occupational / academic functioning had not improved since intake.

• Patients were classified as “regressed” if their symptoms over the past two weeks were more severe or more frequent than at intake and their social / occupational / academic functioning had declined since intake.

Of the patients who completed treatment, 83% (n = 5) achieved full remission from their mood disorder and 17% (n = 1) made significant progress. Of the patients who quit treatment prematurely, 25% (n = 2) had made significant progress by their last session with me, 63% (n = 5) had made some progress, and 12% (n = 1) had made no progress. Among the patients whom I referred to other providers, 40% (n = 2) regressed during their treatment with me, 20% (n = 1) made no progress (n = 1), 20% (n = 1) made some progress, and 20% (n = 1) made significant progress.

In my next post, I will discuss factors that are correlated with treatment completion and good outcome in these mood disorder patients.

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

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

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

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

A New Awareness

Tomorrow, National Eating Disorders Awareness Week (NEDAW) begins.

NEDAW is a public health initiative designed to educate people about eating disorders. While I applaud the good intentions and effort that go into planning and executing NEDAW, I will not be participating in any of the events. I do not believe that the messages conveyed during NEDAW are particularly helpful: instead of correcting the myths and misconceptions associated with eating disorders, NEDAW just seems to perpetuate them.

For example, the National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated Disorders (ANAD) posted the following on their website in under the heading Eating Disorders Awareness Week 2012:

“Through intentional activities, conversations and events we can all help create an environment that redefines outdated thinking, reduces the stigma associated with weight, body shape, or size, and inspires someone to reconsider an unhealthy attitude or behavior.”

There are several assumptions imbedded in this sentence:
• The environment causes eating disorders by making people feel dissatisfied with their bodies.
• People develop eating disorders because they are insecure, vain, shallow, appearance-focused, or overly influenced by the media.
• By altering the messages people receive from their environment and eliminating the “thin is in” culture, we can prevent or cure eating disorders.
• Overcoming an eating disorder is about reconsidering unhealthy attitudes or behaviors.
• If you have a friend or family member suffering from an eating disorder, you should try to inspire him/her to reconsider his/her unhealthy attitudes and behaviors.
• The unhealthy attitudes and behaviors associated with eating disorders are willful and consciously chosen.

Of course, none of these statements are explicit, but they don’t need to be – the public will draw these conclusions on their own.

I wholeheartedly agree that our culture is toxic and that the messages we receive about body image, beauty, food, and sexuality are horrific and damaging. I do not object to these principles at all – quite the contrary – but I do object to focusing on these messages during National Eating Disorders Awareness Week.

The current public health message associated with eating disorders awareness week is something akin to “Girls are dying to be thin, so let’s all love our bodies!” The themes of NEDAW revolve around thinness, body image, and the media. The concept of psychiatric illness is lost. Of course, it does not help that most eating disorder treatment professionals, eating disorder organizations, tabloid magazines, and recovering eating disorder patients espouse the same body-image centered messages.

I would like to change the public health mantra to something along the lines of “Eating disorders are highly heritable brain-based illnesses with severe psychiatric and medical symptoms.” My ideal public health message for EDAW would also contain the following points:

• Most symptoms of anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa are triggered or perpetuated by malnutrition. For those who are biologically vulnerable, dieting can trigger a cascade of self-perpetuating symptoms which lead to life-long psychiatric disability or death.
• Body dysmorphia is a symptom, not a cause, of an eating disorder. It is not present in all eating disorder patients, and it bears little relation to the typical woman’s body image distress.
• Early, aggressive intervention offers the best hope for full recovery.
• An eating disorder is a brain disease, not a weight problem.
• There are a variety of methods for treating eating disorders. Most of the eating disorder treatment available is NOT based on current science or evidence-based practice. Patients and parents must be proactive in finding effective treatment.
• Anosognosia – a neurologically-based inability to recognize one’s illness – is a symptom of Anorexia Nervosa. Therefore, patients should not be expected to “want to get well.” It is up to the patient’s loved ones and clinicians to ensure that he/she gets appropriate treatment as soon as possible.

These are the points that the public needs to hear. These are the points that will truly change the way eating disorders are perceived.

There are many eating disorder treatment professionals out there who will participate in a NEDAW walk or rally, or wear a “Love your body” T-shirt, or attend a screening of “America the Beautiful,” and then head to the office to practice outdated, ineffective treatment.

Next week, I will be promoting eating disorders awareness by providing my patients with the most current, evidence-based information and treatment, and by spreading scientifically-sound information through my blog and through my conversations with people. Please join me!

Posted on

Red Flags: How to Spot Ineffective Eating Disorder Treatment

I have blogged before about how to choose a good therapist. In this post, I will approach the therapist selection / retention issue from the opposite side – how to spot a bad therapist. Please note that many bad therapists are very good people with good intentions. People do not become therapists for money, fame, or the recognition – most of them genuinely care about people and want to help them. By “bad therapist” I mean “ineffective therapist.”

It seems that there are quite a few ineffective therapists who treat eating disorders (ED’s), and this is particularly dangerous given that EDs have such a high mortality rate and are associated with many medical and psychiatric complications.

I have had the privilege of working with many ED patients and families who have received ineffective or actively harmful treatment in the past. In talking with these patients and families about their prior treatment experiences, I have come to recognize many red flags that are very commonly associated with ineffective or harmful ED treatment.

Red Flags re: Etiology

1.) The professional informs the patient or family that the ED is “not about the food.”

2.) The professional informs the patient or family that the ED “is about control.”

3.) The professional is not knowledgeable about recent science regarding the etiology of EDs.

4.) The professional emphasizes psychosocial “causes” of EDs (e.g., family dynamics, societal pressures, identity issues) while ignoring, discounting, or minimizing the genetic and biological underpinnings.

Red Flags re: Family

1.) The professional blames the parents (either subtly or overtly) for causing or “contributing to the development of” the patient’s ED.

2.) The professional advises the parents: “Don’t be the food police.”

3.) The professional does not keep parents of minor patients (< 18 years) fully informed and actively involved in their child’s treatment.

4.) The professional views parents with suspicion or keeps them at arm’s length, without reasonable cause.

Red Flags re: Treatment

1.) The professional is not knowledgeable about evidence-based treatment for EDs.

2.) The professional cannot, or does not, explain the treatment method she uses and / or the rationale behind it.

3.) The professional recommends or allows individual psychotherapy without ongoing nutritional restoration, weight restoration, and medical monitoring.

4.) The professional is very interested in exploring “underlying issues” in an acutely symptomatic patient.

5.) The professional insists on addressing the patient’s co-morbid conditions without also (either first or simultaneously) addressing the ED symptoms.

6.) The professional has never heard of Maudsley / Family-Based Treatment (FBT), or has heard the term but knows nothing about it.

7.) The professional asserts that Maudsley / FBT “will not work” for this particular patient, without giving a convincing explanation for this assertion.

8.) The professional blames the patient (either subtly or overtly) for having an ED.

9.) The professional advises parents to send their child or adolescent away to a residential treatment center without first trying Maudsley / FBT, unless it is clearly contraindicated.

Red Flags re: Recovery

1.) The professional asserts that the acutely ill patient “has to want to eat” or “has to want to recover.”

2.) The professional emphasizes the adolescent or young adult patient’s need for control and independence as more important than her recovery from ED.

3.) The professional sets or allows a target weight range based on population indices (e.g., BMI of 18.5) or percentiles (e.g., 50th percentile for age/height) without consideration of the individual patient’s build, weight history, or optimal weight.

4.) The professional declares the patient “recovered” based on weight alone, without regard for her behavior or mental state.

5.) The professional asserts that one never recovers from an eating disorder.

This list of red flags may be useful when you are looking for or ruling out a professional or treatment program based on information on their website; it may also be useful in interviewing potential new therapists. If you or your loved one have been in treatment for a while without making progress, you can also use these red flags to help you assess the situation and determine whether to go elsewhere for a second opinion.

My advice? If you see one or two of these red flags in your therapist or treatment program, investigate and proceed with caution. If you see three or more, find a new therapist.

Posted on

Why Clinicians Are Resistant to Maudsley FBT

Research has shown that the Maudsley Method of Family-Based Treatment (FBT) is more effective than any other treatment for anorexia nervosa (AN) or bulimia nervosa (BN) in patients under age 18. Despite this fact, many clinicians who treat eating disorders are very resistant to using FBT to treat their patients. There are a variety of reasons for this resistance – some legitimate, some personal, some inexcusable, and some bred from ignorance.

Here are some of the most common reasons why clinicians who treat eating disorders are resistant to using FBT, along with my rebuttals to each:

1.) “I work with adults. FBT is not applicable to most adults.”

While FBT has not been adequately studied in adults, the reality is that there are no evidence-based treatments for adults with AN yet. I believe that patients over age 18 need to have loved ones fully informed about their illness and actively involved in their treatment just as much as young patients. The basic principles of FBT (with some age-appropriate modifications) are now being applied to older patients with very promising results.

As Cynthia Bulik’s recent study on Uniting Couples Against Anorexia Nervosa demonstrated, the principles of FBT can be applied very successfully to adults, using spouses or significant others for support rather than parents.

Also, there is some preliminary evidence that a modified version of FBT can be useful for college-aged patients who are temporarily living at home with parents during recovery. There may very well be a time in the not-too-distant future in which a modified form of FBT is an evidence-based treatment for adults.

2.) “Some families can’t do it.”

This statement is absolutely true – some families can’t do it. However, I believe that the true percentage of families who “can’t do it” is actually much smaller than one may think. FBT can be successful in divorced families, step-families, single-parent families, families with many children, families where both parents work full time, and families in which a parent suffers from a mental illness.

The only real contraindications for FBT in patients under18 are cases in which the patient has been physically or sexually abused by a parent, or both parents are so mentally or physically ill that they are unable to care for their children. Both of these contraindications are relatively rare, and even in these cases, one would hope that the patient would be living in a safe environment with other adults (e.g., relatives, foster parents) who could participate in FBT with the patient.

What happens too often is that parents don’t purse FBT because they aren’t aware it exists, or aren’t aware of the evidence behind it. It is also common for parents to be discouraged from doing FBT with their child because the child’s clinician (who is not really familiar with FBT or who doesn’t agree with it) tells the parent that it won’t work for their particular child for some reason.

In sum, I would estimate that maybe 10 % of families really can’t do it (I have no data to support this percentage; it is just an educated guess). The majority of families can do it if they have the proper clinical support and encouragement. The majority of parents love their children immensely and will do anything to help them recover if given the opportunity. It is up to us, the clinicians, to give families that opportunity.

3.) “Some adolescents don’t improve with FBT.”

I have no counterpoint to this one. The reality is that FBT is not effective for everyone. This is not a shortcoming unique to FBT, as there are no treatments that work for 100% of patients. I doubt that there will ever be one treatment that works for everyone in the same diagnostic category, because each individual patient is unique and has their own set of circumstances. Therefore, we must continue to research other forms of treatment and work to improve upon the existing treatments. When a patient does not improve with FBT, we must offer something else – residential treatment, day treatment, cognitive behavioral therapy – whatever is most appropriate for that particular patient and that particular family.

4.) “My training and inclination is as an individual therapist. Making the switch to working with families is intimidating. Learning FBT would be like starting from scratch.”

I don’t see it as starting from scratch. Rather, I see it as adding another (very effective) tool to your existing toolbox. You certainly don’t need to abandon individual therapy just because you’ve added a new treatment to your repertoire.

While some patients will recover fully with FBT and never need individual therapy, most patients do have co-morbid disorders or other issues which need to be addressed with individual therapy. In these cases, individual therapy comes after FBT. Many times I have transitioned to individual therapy with a patient after the patient has successfully recovered with FBT. The great thing about this approach is that the eating disorder has already been fully addressed through FBT, so you and the patient can focus all your time and energy on other things, such as depression, OCD, body image issues, perfectionism, and social difficulties.

5.) “My training is in psychodynamic therapy and relational approaches. FBT is pretty concrete and behavioral. Adopting FBT would seem to remove the very things that made me want to become a therapist in the first place – the focus on depth and the therapeutic relationship.”

FBT is more concrete and behavioral than other types of therapy, and I believe that is part of why it is so effective in treating these malignant illnesses which demand immediate behavioral management in order to save the patient’s health. That being said, the therapeutic relationship is just as essential in FBT as it is in other types of treatment. The parents and the therapist must develop trust in one another, and mutual respect is key, because the parents and therapist are allies working together against the illness on behalf of the child. It is extremely rewarding to be able to offer this kind of assistance and support to terrified, confused, guilt-stricken parents, who blossom with confidence as you educate them about the illness and empower them to do what needs to be done to help their child recover.

And the kids! It is nothing short of amazing to watch the therapeutic relationship evolve and unfold so quickly as recovery progresses. In the first few sessions, the kid typically presents as catatonically depressed, curled up in a fetal position under a blanket, sobbing quietly; or the kid reacts with extreme anger and resistance, yelling and hurling insults and dropping f-bombs before running out of the room. Entire tissue boxes are gone through in one session; stuffed animals need to be placed back on the shelves after being thrown. And within a few months, the kid is smiling, laughing, so happy to see you, chattering on about their trip to Disney World or their new boyfriend or how much they love ‘90’s music exclaiming “Wow, Dr. Ravin, it must have been so cool to be a teenager back in the ‘90’s!” The transformation is astounding.

Furthermore, there is lots of room for a tremendous amount of depth when continuing to work with the patient individually after FBT has been successfully completed. In fact, is even more feasible to go into greater depth in these cases, because the eating disorder is in remission and health-threatening behaviors have long-since been eliminated, so treatment can focus exclusively on other (often more interesting!) issues.

6.) “FBT is agnostic on etiology, and I think etiology is very important.”

Yes, FBT is agnostic with regards to etiology. In other words, the clinician states clearly at the outset of treatment that we don’t know exactly what causes eating disorders, and that it is not relevant for the purposes of this treatment. I believe this agnostic stance is one of the strengths of FBT: it does not waste time on “why” but instead focuses on “how” to help the patient recover.

I agree that etiology is very important because our ideas about etiology (for better or for worse) have a huge impact on how we treat patients. Therefore, clinicians and researchers must continue to have professional discussions about etiology amongst themselves.

My concern is not the discussion of etiology amongst professionals in the field. Rather, my concerns are 1.) When clinicians have a particular presumption about etiology which is not consistent with recent scientific evidence, 2.) When that particular presumption guides the use of treatments that are less effective, and 3.) When those presumptions about etiology cause harm to patients and their families by subtly or overtly blaming the patient or the family.

In my opinion, when clinicians discuss etiology with patients and their families, these discussions should be limited to the following points:

A.) Clarifying that neither the patient nor the family is to blame for the illness.

B.) Dispelling common myths about etiology (e.g., media, control issues, overprotective parents)

C.) Discussing the “Four P’s:” predisposing factors (e.g., genetic predisposition), precipitating factors (e.g., weight loss through dieting or illness), perpetuating factors (e.g., malnutrition has a calming and mood-elevating effect on those who are vulnerable to eating disorders), and prognostic factors (e.g., importance of early and aggressive intervention, maintenance of optimal body weight).

This is all the information patients and families need to know about etiology, because let’s be frank: this is all we really know about etiology. Anything else is just a distraction.

Posted on

Controversy

I love controversy.

So naturally, I was thrilled to read the recent news article in the Sun Sentinel with a headline describing Maudsley as “a controversial treatment.”

This article gives an overview of the Maudsley Method and describes the experiences of two families – one with a 12-year-old girl and one with an 18-year-old boy – who used this approach to help their children recover from Anorexia Nervosa (AN). In a fair and balanced way, the article also lists some of the criticisms of the Maudsley Method that make it so controversial.

I believe that controversy is healthy part of living in a free society. Without controversy, there cannot be progress in the areas of ethics, morals, politics, or social norms. We must challenge old ideas and new ideas alike. We must approach life with an open mind as well as a healthy degree of skepticism. Some of the best ideas in the history of humanity, such as racial integration, freedom of religion, and equal rights for both genders, were born amidst extreme controversy. Thousands of people devoted their lives to the pursuit of these ideas. People died fighting for these causes. And to my generation, they seem so obvious and self-evident that we take them for granted.

Controversy accelerates progress in the aforementioned areas by shedding new light on old ideas. On the contrary, controversy tends to hinder progress in science. This happens because controversy over scientific ideas generally arises when people criticize or oppose scientific discoveries on the grounds of theology, politics, morality, or philosophy. Many scientific truths were initially met with extreme controversy. Galileo was tried – and convicted – by the Vatican for his scientific explanation of a heliocentric universe. And although Darwin’s theory of evolution has been almost universally supported by the modern scientific community, it was (and still is, in some communities) highly controversial for cultural, theological, and political reasons.

All viewpoints have equal merit in debating different perspectives on morality, philosophy, or politics. The winning idea is the one which is shared by the majority of people, which is then often supported by legislation and reinforced by social norms. This is what happened with racial integration, religious freedom, and gender equality. In debates over science, however, some answers are clearly superior to others. Ideas supported by scientific research are superior to ideas not supported by scientific research. Scientists conduct reliable studies, interpret the data, and present the results to their peers. Eventually, these results are disseminated into the public domain. Personal beliefs and political viewpoints and religious doctrines have no place in scientific inquiry. They obscure the truth.

In this vein, we have the controversy over the Maudsley Approach. Some clinicians say that they “don’t believe in Maudsley” just as some people say they don’t believe in God or Santa Clause or evolution. Maudsley, like evolution, is not a “belief” to be accepted or rejected. Maudsley, like evolution, is supported by a wealth of scientific literature which should be evaluated empirically and used effectively to understand and advance the human condition. To treat Maudsley as a socio-political issue like gay marriage that one sides “for” or “against” muddies the waters, misses the point, and makes one look scientifically illiterate.

Those who criticize Maudsley are doing so on philosophical, rather than scientific, grounds. They have not devised reliable, valid studies yielding data to the contrary. Rather, they cite antiquated and unproven ideas about eating disorders, they make criticisms that show a clear ignorance of the scientific process, or they ask irrelevant questions.

Some day soon, the Maudsley Approach will join the ranks of Darwin’s evolution and Galileo’s heliocentric solar system as a scientifically accepted truth. Some day soon, all therapists will approach psychology as a science – like biology and astronomy – which is guided by empirical data and impervious to personal beliefs.