The challenges of treating anorexia nervosa are plenty; some of these challenges — like low prevalence rate and high treatment dropout rate — make conducting randomised controlled trials aimed at identifying effective treatment methods really hard as well.
So I was pretty excited about the recently published randomised controlled trial comparing focal psychodynamic therapy (FPT), cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), and optimised treatment as usual in adult (a harder to treat demographic than adolescents) anorexia nervosa patients.
Reading the paper, I was pretty impressed with how good the study design was; I’m not going to go into all the nitty-gritty details, but if you have access to and the chance to read the paper, do it. You’ll appreciate, I think, the amount of effort that went into this.
Patients were recruited from ten universities across Germany. They had to be adult females with a BMI between 15-18 and with no current substance use, psychotic or bipolar disorders. In total, 242 individuals started the study (80 in the FPT and CBT groups, and 82 in the treatment as usual group). …
Here’s a quick tip: when a study that purports to find evidence of treatment effectiveness–preliminary or not–doesn’t have a control group (a group that doesn’t undergo treatment but is otherwise similar to the group that does), you should raise your eyebrows. Or shake your head. Or roll your eyes. Whichever you prefer.
Why do we need a control group? If the treatment works, we will see improvement in the patients, so isn’t that evidence enough? Well, no.
(By the way, I recommend reading the article I just quoted, “How to Be a Wise Consumer of Psychological Research” from the American Psychological Association.)
In the introduction, the authors of this study make the case that anorexia nervosa (AN) is difficult to treat and difficult to study (low prevalence, high dropout, necessary long-length of follow-up, etc…) and so if we could have treatment approach that would be successful on an outpatient basis, that would be great.
No argument there. There is a lot of consensus that long-term continuous low-intensity care is crucial for sustained recovery. (A short stay at a …
The approaches used in clinical practice to treat patients often lag behind the most up-to-date developments in research. It can take a long time to integrate scientific findings into clinical practice. This, of course, is not limited to eating disorders or even mental health issues. This so-called “science-practice gap” exists for many reasons, which vary depending on the medical discipline.
This issue, though, seems particularly bad when it comes to eating disorder treatment.
There’s the issue of conducting good studies – how do we determine what is efficacious? That’s a complicated task. What is “recovery” and how long is long-enough for follow-up? Is what we consider to be efficacious really efficacious or just slightly better than the rest?
Then there’s the training: mental health seems to be undervalued in medical school curricula for one, but even more importantly: “Clinicians tend to give more weight to their personal experiences than to science when making treatment decision.” And can’t you really blame them, most of us tend to stick to what we know and to doing things the way we were initially …