ArticleJournal of eating disorders2026
General practitioner experiences and perceptions of the ANZAED Eating Disorder Credential.
Article in Journal of eating disorders, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Australia & New Zealand Academy for Eating Disorders (ANZAED) established a credentialing system for general practitioners (GPs) in 2024. The ANZAED Eating Disorder Credential formally recognises GPs who have the necessary knowledge and training to provide safe and effective care to patients with eating disorders (EDs). The aim of this study was to learn about the experiences of both credentialed and non-credentialed GPs, with a particular focus on their reasons for becoming credentialed, barriers to becoming credentialed, and how the Credential has impacted their clinical practice.
methodsThirty-eight GPs (37 female, 21 credentialed, 17 non-credentialed) completed an online mixed-methods survey, with both open-ended questions and multiple-choice questions. The survey asked about their perceptions of the Credential and their experiences with the credentialing system.
resultsThe main motivations to become credentialed were to receive recognition for their training (n = 15, 71.4%) and improve their knowledge about EDs (n = 9, 42.9%). The main reasons to not become credentialed were not wanting to increase their ED caseload (n = 11, 64.7%) or be identified as an ED specific GP (n = 10, 58.8%). Three quarters (n = 16, 76.2%) of credentialed GPs did not perceive their ED patient caseload changing after becoming credentialed. Content analysis of open-ended questions yielded two themes: (1) The value of the Credential; and (2) Need for increased clarity about the Credential. Theme 1 highlighted the financial and workload barriers to becoming credentialed, whilst also indicating that GPs perceived that the Credential would improve their care of EDs. Theme 2 identified some areas where there was a need for increased understanding of the Credential's requirements for GPs and its potential impact on people living with EDs.
conclusionsGPs are motivated to become credentialed to gain recognition for their ED knowledge and training. However, improvements in the credentialing system may encourage its uptake. These may include increasing the Credential's visibility and recognition, addressing perceptions of the financial impact, improving clarity about the Credential's overall aims and providing additional support to GPs in their learning.
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.