Survey on self-reported psychotropic drug prescribing practices of eating disorder psychiatrists for the treatment of young people with anorexia nervosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To survey current prescribing practices of psychotropic drugs by child and adolescent eating disorder (CAED) psychiatrists in the treatment of anorexia nervosa (AN). DESIGN: Cross-sectional self-administered survey. SETTING: All children and young people eating disorder services (CYP EDS) in England during a national training programme. PARTICIPANTS: 44 CAED psychiatrists practising in CYP EDS in England. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: CAED psychiatrists completed a questionnaire regarding the pattern of psychopharmacological care in AN that they provide and the medication treatment pattern at their CYP EDS. Secondary outcome measures included the process of continuing pharmacotherapy from secondary care to primary care. RESULTS: Of the 77 CYP EDS representing every team in England, 44 teams represented by a CAED psychiatrist responded, despite 13 having no psychiatrists in post at the time of the study (response rate 69%). Most (40%) respondents estimated that <10% of patients with AN were prescribed psychotropic medications. Olanzapine was reported as the most commonly prescribed medication for AN by 38% of the respondents, followed by fluoxetine (29%) and sertraline (10%). The most common minimum olanzapine initiation dose in this study was at 2.5 mg/day for a duration of 2-4 weeks, reaching a maximum dose of 5 mg/day. Most (68%) reviewed medications every week (30%) or every 2 weeks (38%). Over 50% of the respondents reported continuation of olanzapine prescribing within the CYP EDS teams. CONCLUSIONS: This nationally representative survey showed that despite a lack of evidence, psychotropic medications are commonly prescribed to a minority of patients, most frequently, olanzapine. Further evidence is needed on which patients may potentially benefit from pharmacotherapy as an adjunct to psychological interventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".