Cited by 112Eating Disorders and BehaviorsNutrition, Health and Food BehaviorPersonality Disorders and Psychopathology

The FREED Project (first episode and rapid early intervention in eating disorders): service model, feasibility and acceptability

Brown, Amy, McClelland, Jessica, Boysen, Elena, Mountford, Victoria, Glennon, Danielle, Schmidt, Ulrike·2018·Early Intervention in Psychiatry

Abstract

Aim: Eating disorders (EDs) are disabling disorders, predominantly affecting adolescents and young adults. Untreated symptoms have lasting effects on brain, body and behaviour. Care pathway‐related barriers often prevent early detection and treatment of ED. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of FREED (First Episode and Rapid Early Intervention for Eating Disorder), a novel service for young people (aged 18–25 years) with recent ED onset (≤3 years), embedded in a specialist adult National Health Service ED service. Specifically, we assessed the impact of FREED on duration of time until specialist service contact (DUSC), duration of untreated ED (DUED) and wait‐times for assessment and treatment compared with patients seen earlier in our service. Acceptability of FREED was also assessed. Methods: Sixty individuals were recruited from September 2014 to August 2015. Fifty‐one of these were compared with 89 patients seen earlier. Results: FREED patients, from areas with minimal National Health Service gatekeeping (14/51), had markedly shorter DUSC and DUED than controls (DUSC: 12.4 months vs. 16.2 months; DUED 13.0 months vs. 19.1 months), whereas those with complex gatekeeping (37/51) had shorter DUED (17.7 months), but longer DUSC (16.9 months) than controls. FREED patients waited significantly less time for both assessment and treatment than controls, had significantly better treatment uptake and were highly satisfied with the process of starting treatment. Conclusions: FREED is a feasible and acceptable service which successfully reduced waiting times. Reductions in DUSC and DUED depend on gatekeeping arrangements. More research is required to establish clinical outcomes of FREED.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/eip.12382

Cites

19 of 19 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brown, A., McClelland, J., Boysen, E., Mountford, V., Glennon, D., & Schmidt, U.
Affiliations
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Schmidt, Ulrike
Venue
Early Intervention in Psychiatry
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-09-13
Volume
12
Issue
2
Pages
250-257
ISSN
  • 1751-7885 (ISSN-L)
  • 1751-7893
OpenAlex
W2507677419
Cited by
112
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
5.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Early Intervention in Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Health Foundation (GIFTS 7294/CRM 1216)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
Keywords
eating disorders, early intervention, young adults, gatekeeping, waiting time, treatment uptake, service acceptability
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Feeding and Eating Disorders, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Time Factors, Young Adult, Early Medical Intervention, Time-to-Treatment

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