ObjectiveThis systematic scoping review examined available studies reporting on psychological interventions for Avoidant Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID) and synthesised how outcomes are measured during such interventions.Method Five databases (Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PsychInfo and Web of Science) were searched on 9th May and 22nd December 2022. Studies were included if they reported on psychological interventions for patients with a diagnosis of ARFID. Studies were excluded if patients did not have ARFID and if psychological interventions were not provided or detailed. Overall, fifty studies were included and synthesised. Results The most common psychological interventions for ARFID were behavioural therapy (17 studies), followed by cognitive-behavioural therapy (16 studies), and family-based therapy (14 studies). Most studies reported on psychological interventions for children and adolescents with ARFID (42 studies), The majority of included studies were from Western samples (including 33 from the US or Canada). Almost half of studies were single-case study designs (22 studies). compared to adult samples. Outcomes were generally favourable and were most commonly measured via physical health metrics (33 studies). Discussion This review highlights the advances in psychological interventions for ARFID over the past 10 years. The most common psychological interventions for ARFID were behavioural approaches, CBT, and FBT, with common themes across these interventions such as food exposure, psychoeducation, family involvement, and anxiety management. Several areas for future research and implications for clinical practice are discussed, including the need for individualised formulation to guide interventions, more rigorous treatment studies, and more research for adults with ARFID.

Introduction: Individuals with eating disorders are known to have higher rates of insecure attachment compared to community controls, but the factors underlying this finding are poorly understood. We conducted the first meta-analysis comparing attachment in eating disorder samples compared to community controls that included quality assessment, publication bias and moderation analysis. Method: We pre-registered our meta-analysis (CRD42019146799) and followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched PsychINFO, Embase, Medline, CINAHL and Scopus for publications. Attachment scores were extracted, and Cohen’s d calculated for each study using a random effects model.Results: In total, 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis and six studies were summarized in a narrative review. Eating disorder samples showed higher rates of insecure attachment compared to community controls, with a large effect size, across measurement methods and different attachment dimensions. Blinding of assessors moderated effect sizes for attachment interview studies, but no other moderators were significant. Discussion: Risk of insecure attachment is elevated in individuals with eating disorders, albeit heterogeneity is high and largely unexplained. Clinicians may need to take this into account in their work, particularly given the association between attachment insecurity and challenges to therapeutic alliance. Future studies comparing eating disorder samples with community controls should control for general psychopathology.

Objective: Individuals with eating disorders are known to have higher rates of insecure attachment compared to community controls, but the factors underlying this finding are poorly understood. We conducted the first meta-analysis comparing attachment in eating disorder samples compared to community controls that included quality assessment, publication bias and moderation analysis.Method: We pre-registered our meta-analysis (CRD42019146799) and followed PRISMA guidelines. We searched PsychINFO, Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and Scopus for publications. Attachment scores were extracted, and Cohen's d calculated for each study using a random effects model. Results:In total, 35 studies were included in the meta-analysis and six studies were summarized in a narrative review. Eating disorder samples showed higher rates of insecure attachment compared to community controls, with a large effect size, across measurement methods and different attachment dimensions. Blinding of assessors moderated effect sizes for attachment interview studies, but no other moderators were significant.Discussion: Risk of insecure attachment is elevated in individuals with eating disorders, albeit heterogeneity is high and largely unexplained. Clinicians may need to take this into account in their work, particularly given the association between attachment insecurity and challenges to therapeutic alliance. Future studies comparing eating disorder samples with community samples should control for general psychopathology.