Cited by 16Eating Disorders and BehaviorsHealth Policy Implementation SciencePsychiatric care and mental health services

Assessing implementation fidelity in the First Episode Rapid Early Intervention for Eating Disorders service model

Open access
Richards, Katie L., Flynn, Michaela, Austin, Amelia, Lang, Katie, Allen, Karina L., Bassi, Ranjeet, Brady, Gabrielle, Brown, Amy +13 more·2021·BJPsych Open

Abstract

Background: The First Episode Rapid Early Intervention for Eating Disorders (FREED) service model is associated with significant reductions in wait times and improved clinical outcomes for emerging adults with recent-onset eating disorders. An understanding of how FREED is implemented is a necessary precondition to enable an attribution of these findings to key components of the model, namely the wait-time targets and care package. Aims: This study evaluated fidelity to the FREED service model during the multicentre FREED-Up study. Method: Participants were 259 emerging adults (aged 16–25 years) with an eating disorder of <3 years duration, offered treatment through the FREED care pathway. Patient journey records documented patient care from screening to end of treatment. Adherence to wait-time targets (engagement call within 48 h, assessment within 2 weeks, treatment within 4 weeks) and care package, and differences in adherence across diagnosis and treatment group were examined. Results: There were significant increases (16–40%) in adherence to the wait-time targets following the introduction of FREED, irrespective of diagnosis. Receiving FREED under optimal conditions also increased adherence to the targets. Care package use differed by component and diagnosis. The most used care package activities were psychoeducation and dietary change. Attention to transitions was less well used. Conclusions: This study provides an indication of adherence levels to key components of the FREED model. These adherence rates can tentatively be considered as clinically meaningful thresholds. Results highlight aspects of the model and its implementation that warrant future examination.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1192/bjo.2021.51

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Richards, K. L., Flynn, M., Austin, A., Lang, K., Allen, K. L., Bassi, R., Brady, G., Brown, A., Connan, F., Franklin-Smith, M., Glennon, D., Grant, N., Jones, W. R., Kali, K., Koskina, A., Mahony, K., Mountford, V. A., Nunes, N., Schelhase, M., Serpell, L., & Schmidt, U.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • North East London NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Corresponding author
Schmidt, Ulrike
Venue
BJPsych Open
Published
2021-05
Volume
7
Issue
3
Pages
e98-e98
ISSN
2056-4724 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3158512258
Cited by
16
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BJPsych Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0616-10075)
  • King's College London
  • University College London
  • Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London
  • Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, King's College London, University of London
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Eating Disorders and Behaviors
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychiatric care and mental health services
Keywords
implementation fidelity, eating disorders, emerging adults, care packages, psychoeducation, dietary change, care transitions

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