Statewide Eating Disorder Service, South Australian Department of Health and Wellbeing, Government of South Australia, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.
Blackbird Initiative, Órama Research Institute, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA 5042, Australia.
Nutrients. 2022 Feb 19;14(4):879. doi: 10.3390/nu14040879.
The use of a Day Program (DP) format (i.e., intensive daily treatment with no overnight admission) has been shown to be an effective treatment for eating disorders (EDs). The disadvantages, however, include higher cost than outpatient treatment (including costs of meals and staff), greater disruption to patients' lives, and the use of a highly structured and strict schedule that may interrupt the development of patients' autonomy in taking responsibility for their recovery. This study investigated whether reducing costs of a DP and the disruption to patients' lives, and increasing opportunity to develop autonomy, impacted clinical outcomes. Three sequential DP formats were compared in the current study: Format 1 was the most expensive (provision of supported dinners three times/week and extended staff hours); Format 2 included only one dinner/week and provision of a take-home meal. Both formats gave greater support to patients who were not progressing well (i.e., extended admission and extensive support from staff when experiencing feelings of suicidality or self-harm). Format 3 did not provide this greater support but established pre-determined admission lengths and required the patient to step out of the program temporarily when feeling suicidal. Fifty-six patients were included in the analyses: 45% were underweight (body mass index (BMI) < 18.5), 96.4% were female, 63% were given a primary diagnosis of anorexia nervosa (or atypical anorexia nervosa), and mean age was 25.57 years. Clinical outcomes were assessed using self-reported measures of disordered eating, psychosocial impairment, and negative mood, but BMI was recorded by staff. Over admission, 4- and 8-week post-admission, and discharge there were no significant differences between any of the clinical outcomes across the three formats. We can tentatively conclude that decreasing costs and increasing the opportunities for autonomy did not negatively impact patient outcomes, but future research should seek to replicate these results in other and larger populations that allow conclusions to be drawn for different eating disorder diagnostic groups.
使用日间治疗方案(即密集的每日治疗,无需过夜住院)已被证明是治疗饮食障碍(ED)的有效方法。然而,其缺点包括比门诊治疗费用更高(包括膳食和员工费用)、对患者生活的干扰更大,以及使用高度结构化和严格的时间表,这可能会干扰患者对自己康复负责的自主权的发展。本研究调查了降低 DP 的成本和对患者生活的干扰,以及增加发展自主权的机会,是否会对临床结果产生影响。在当前研究中比较了三种连续的 DP 格式:格式 1 是最昂贵的(每周提供三次支持晚餐和延长员工工作时间);格式 2 仅包括每周一次晚餐和提供外带餐。这两种格式都为那些进展不佳的患者提供了更大的支持(即,当出现自杀或自残的感觉时,延长住院时间和工作人员的广泛支持)。格式 3 没有提供这种更大的支持,但规定了预先确定的住院时间,并且当患者感到自杀时需要暂时退出该计划。共有 56 名患者纳入分析:45%体重过轻(体重指数(BMI)<18.5),96.4%为女性,63%被诊断为神经性厌食症(或非典型神经性厌食症),平均年龄为 25.57 岁。临床结果使用自我报告的饮食障碍、心理社会障碍和负面情绪的测量来评估,但 BMI 由工作人员记录。在住院期间、出院后 4 周和 8 周,三种格式之间的任何临床结果均无显著差异。我们可以暂时得出结论,降低成本和增加自主权的机会不会对患者的结果产生负面影响,但未来的研究应该在其他和更大的人群中复制这些结果,以便对不同的饮食障碍诊断组得出结论。