Cited by 94Eating Disorders and BehaviorsChild Nutrition and Feeding IssuesNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Feasibility of conducting a randomized clinical trial using family-based treatment for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder

Lock, James, Sadeh‐Sharvit, Shiri, L'Insalata, Alexa·2019·International Journal of Eating Disorders

Abstract

Treatments for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) lack strong empirical support. There is a critical need to conduct adequately powered studies to identify effective treatments for ARFID. As a first step, the primary aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of conducting a randomized clinical trial (RCT) comparing Family-based Treatment for ARFID (FBT-ARFID) to usual care (UC). The primary outcomes were recruitment, attrition, suitability, and expectancy rates. The secondary aim was to assess changes in percent estimated body weight, eating related psychopathology, and parental self-efficacy from baseline to end of treatment/UC period in both groups. Recruitment rates were 1.87 per month; 28 children with ARFID and their families were randomized and attrition rate was 21%. Therapeutic suitability and expectancy rating suggested that FBT-ARFID was acceptable to families. Effect size (ES) differences on measures of weight and clinical severity were moderate to large, favoring FBT-ARFID over UC. Parental self-efficacy improvement also demonstrated a large ES favoring FBT-ARFID, which was correlated with improvements in ARFID symptoms. There is a research gap between our knowledge base on how to treat children with ARFID and clinical need. The data presented suggest that an RCT comparing FBT-ARFID and UC is feasible to conduct.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/eat.23077

Cites

28 of 28 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There are promising psychosocial treatments for ARFID in children and adolescents.

    “There are currently a number of promising psychosocial treatments for ARFID in children and adolescents (e.g., Dumont, Jansen, Kroes, de Haan, & Mulkens, 2019); Lock, Sadeh-Sharvit, & L’Insalata, 2019; Sharp et al., 2016; Thomas et al., in press).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lock, J., Sadeh‐Sharvit, S., & L'Insalata, A.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences Stanford University Stanford California
Corresponding author
Lock, James
Venue
International Journal of Eating Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-03-29
Volume
52
Issue
6
Pages
746-751
ISSN
  • 0276-3478 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-108X
OpenAlex
W2928472045
Cited by
94
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2
FWCI
7.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Eating Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder, family-based treatment, trial feasibility, usual care comparison, body weight, parental self-efficacy, children, eating disorders
MeSH terms
Feeding and Eating Disorders, Child, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Psychopathology, Retrospective Studies, Treatment Outcome

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review