ArticleBMC public health2024
Experts' views on the implementation of digital interventions for eating disorders: a Delphi study.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Finding meaning in the Maze (Out): a co-produced reflexive thematic analysis of patients' reflection tasks.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Development and evaluation of a web-based toolkit to inform mental health professionals about digital mental health interventions for eating disorders.Journal of eating disorders · 2026Article
- Exploring Therapists' Approaches to Treating Eating Disorders to Inform User-Centric App Design: Web-Based Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEating disorders (EDs) constitute a considerable burden for individuals and society, but adequate and timely professional treatment is rare. Evidence-based Digital Mental Health Interventions (DMHIs) have the potential both to reduce this treatment gap and to increase treatment effectiveness. However, their integration into routine care is lacking. Understanding practitioners' attitudes towards DMHIs for EDs is crucial for their effective use.
aimsTo investigate the consensus among German ED treatment experts on the relevance of different influencing factors for DMHI use in EDs.
methodsThis Delphi study consisted of two rounds and was conducted online with an initial sample of N = 24 ED experts (M
resultsImportance ratings were high across items (M = 7.88, SD = 2.07, Mdn = 8). In the first round, 48% of the items reached consensus, with its most important (Mdn = 10) factors referring to data security, evidence base, technical requirements, usability, and specific DMHI content (psychoeducation, crisis intervention). In the second Delphi round, a consensus was reached on 73% of the items. No consensus was reached on 17 items.
conclusionsThe findings on practitioners' attitudes and priorities have relevant implications for subsequent DMHI development, dissemination, and implementation strategies, indicating that the highest-rated factors should be highlighted in the process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.