A systematic review of cognitive behavior therapy and dialectical behavior therapy for adolescent eating disorders.

backgroundEating disorders have serious psychological and physical consequences. Current evidence-based treatments for adolescents with eating disorders have modest effects, underscoring the need to improve current treatment approaches. Cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) have been proposed as alternative treatment options, with burgeoning research in this area. This review aims to summarize and critically analyze the current literature on the feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness, and efficacy of CBT and DBT for adolescent eating disorders, and then proposes areas of future research.

methodsPsycINFO and PubMed were searched using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify studies examining the feasibility, acceptability, effectiveness and/or efficacy of CBT or DBT for adolescent eating disorders.

resultsEligible studies (N = 50; CBT: n = 40, DBT: n = 10) indicated that both treatments are reasonably feasible, acceptable, and possibly effective for adolescent eating disorders across diagnoses and levels of care, though efficacy trials are lacking.

conclusionsCBT and DBT demonstrate promise as alternatives to family-based approaches for adolescent eating disorders. Adequately powered trials to establish the effectiveness and efficacy of CBT and DBT are needed, particularly ones that compare these treatments against other leading approaches. Despite high rates of relapse and likelihood for severe and enduring illness, there is a dearth of evidence-based treatment options for adolescents with eating disorders. Potentially viable but less well-studied treatments for adolescents with eating disorders include cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) and dialectical behavior therapy (DBT). This systematic review of CBT and DBT for adolescent eating disorders focuses on feasibility (i.e., how easy it was to implement the treatment), acceptability (i.e., how well the intervention was received by patients and therapists), effectiveness (i.e., how well the intervention performed under routine, real-world circumstances), and efficacy (i.e., how well the intervention performed in highly-controlled research settings). This review concludes that research supports the feasibility and acceptability of these approaches, as well as preliminary evidence of their effectiveness. However, the field is lacking studies that systematically compare CBT and DBT to other evidence-based approaches. Recommendations to advance research on CBT and DBT for adolescent eating disorders are provided, including a call for efficacy studies that clarify their performance compared to other leading approaches.