Clinician knowledge and perceptions of evidence-based practice in pediatric eating disorders in Western Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evidence-based practice (EBP) for pediatric eating disorders (EDs), including the strongly recommended family-based treatment (FBT), is not always available to children, adolescents or emerging adults and their families. Our aim was to investigate clinician knowledge and perspectives of EBP, including FBT, and explore barriers and facilitators to its implementation. Clinicians working in Western Canada who were engaged in care for pediatric EDs were invited to participate. A multimethod design was employed using an online survey and subsequent phone interview for data collection. Descriptive data was summarized using means and frequencies. Qualitative data was analysed using a mixed approach encompassing inductive and deductive techniques. Eighty-four clinicians completed the survey and 24 completed the interview. A total of 64% of clinicians providing therapy were offering FBT in their practice. Of these, 12.5% had no formal training in the modality. Clinicians identified a range of barriers and facilitators to EBP, including FBT, such as service-centered reasons (inadequate training, staff beliefs around which professionals should be involved, program mandates, and private practice therapists struggling to get other professionals on the ‘same page’ in FBT), clinician-centered reasons (desire to offer more holistic care, lack of inclusion of dietetics, belief that FBT was better suited to hospital settings), and patient/family-centered reasons (co-occurring conditions in parents or children, lack of financial privilege). The barriers to delivering EBP, and low rates of formal FBT training indicate a need to improve capacity building efforts for pediatric ED clinicians, including improved access to training and consultation. Children, youth and their families can experience challenges with accessing timely evidence-based treatment for eating disorders. Our team engaged with clinicians working in British Columbia and Alberta to understand their knowledge and perspectives of care for pediatric eating disorders, and learn about factors that help and hinder the implementation of treatment approaches that are recommended in Canadian guidelines, such as family-based treatment (FBT). Participants completed an online survey and were also invited to take part in a subsequent phone interview, with 84 clinicians taking part in the survey, and 24 in the interview. Nearly two-thirds of therapists were offering FBT in clinical care; however, some of these therapists reported having no formal training in FBT. Clinicians shared a variety of barriers to using evidence-based practice, including FBT, in their clinical work. This study suggests a need to improve access to training and consultation for clinicians to help make evidence-based treatments for pediatric eating disorders more available.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".