ArticleJournal of eating disorders2026
"We might be making mistakes, but we're learning, we're trying, and we're listening": embedding qualitative methods within the plan-do-study-act cycle to support the development of a pilot multidisciplinary ARFID pathway.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAvoidant restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) was introduced to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) in 2013 and current guidelines recommend multidisciplinary care, however there are few evaluations of such pathways. This study aims to enhance the study stage of the plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycle using qualitative methods to improve the development, refinement, and implementation of a novel pilot ARFID pathway in a community eating disorder service.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 participants with experience of the pathway (7 service users:10 staff members) according to an interview schedule. Reflexive, codebook thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview data.
resultsGaps in understanding and treating ARFID were revealed, leading to feelings of uncertainty and frustration. The establishment of a specialist multidisciplinary team (MDT) improved knowledge and efficiency but created challenges related to team integration and resource allocation. Barriers for service user engagement and communication demonstrated the need for service user consultation and pathway co-creation.
conclusionsService user consultation, treatment adaptations for neurodiversity and cross-service working were identified to improve the pathway as part of the act stage of the PDSA cycle. Future ARFID pathways should prioritise service user agency and access to multidisciplinary care and incorporate consultation from external eating disorder service, as well as lived experience experts.
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.