Identifying research priorities in eating disorders: A Delphi study building consensus across clinicians, researchers, consumers, and carers in Australia

Abstract

Introduction: Eating disorders are under-represented among successful applications for medical research funding. Developing agreement on the top research priorities may assist in fostering collaborations, innovation and meaningful consumer and carer involvement. This study aimed to develop consensus among Australian clinicians, researchers, consumers, carers and interested members of affiliated industries, on the priorities for eating disorders research. Methods: The Delphi expert consensus method was used. Participants were 291 members of the Australia New Zealand Academy for Eating Disorders (ANZAED) or the National Eating Disorders Collaboration (NEDC). Three panels were formed based on participant expertise: 'ED Specialists', Consumers/Carers, and Affiliates. A total of 32 potential research areas (29 in Survey 1, 3 in Survey 2) were rated on a 5-point scale of importance, with 80% agreement across all three panels required for endorsement as a priority. Participants also ranked 7 broad research domains in order of priority. Results:Research areas describing early intervention and evidence-based treatments were the most highly rated, with more than 90% endorsement from each of the three panels. The research domains of accessible evidence-based treatments, early intervention and detection, and origins of eating disorders, were the most highly ranked. The ED Specialists and consumer/carer panels had very similar patterns of responding, while the affiliate panel showed small differences. Discussion: Using the Delphi expert consensus method resulted in a collaborative consensus driven eating disorders research agenda for the Australian context and forms a model upon which other countries may also develop their funding priorities.

Development of consensus‐based guidelines for outpatient dietetic treatment of eating disorders: A Delphi study

“…The primary limitation of this study is the rate of attrition (79.6%) which was higher than previous studies using similar methodology (Hart and Wade (2020)—40%; Doley et al (2017)—50%). Rate of attrition among ED specialist dietitians and psychologists/clinical psychologists was similar from round one to round two (67.7% and 71.4%, respectively), meaning the proportion of these clinicians in round one and two was consistent (42.5–43.5% and 34.8–38.4% of the ED specialist panel was comprised of dietitians and psychologists/clinical psychologists in rounds one and two).…”

“…Therefore, there is the potential for the attitudes of non‐dietitians toward dietetic treatment and the treatment modality they usually employ to have influenced their responses. However, as noted by Hart and Wade (2020), Delphi studies are considered to produce high‐quality outcomes from consensus where the participants and methods include diversity of expertise, independence of ratings and valid aggregation methods for co‐ordinating the group's responses. Given the limited availability of literature regarding outpatient dietetic treatment for EDs and the ability for Delphi studies to provide high‐quality results amongst groups with a variety of expertise, authors believe the incorporation of non‐dietetic clinicians is still useful in developing consensus‐based guidelines for dietetic treatment.…”

“…Authors also chose a modified Delphi method to encourage participation from individuals who were time‐poor and may have had less capacity to respond to open‐ended questions as is used in the first round of traditional Delphi studies. This study aimed to recruit three panels based on prior research (Hart & Wade, 2020): (a) ED specialists—clinicians or researchers specializing in EDs; (b) non‐ED specialists—clinicians or researchers working predominantly in an area other than EDs; and (c) consumers and carers—individuals with lived experience of an ED or as a carer for someone with an ED.…”

Cocreating research priorities for anorexia nervosa: The Canadian Eating Disorder Priority Setting Partnership

“…While the first in Canada, a similar priority‐setting exercise has taken place in the Netherlands (van Furth, van der Meer, & Cowan, ), and in Australia using a Delphi study design (Hart & Wade, ). Although both of these priority projects included a larger scope involving all types of EDs and topic areas (e.g., prevention), several similarities of the priorities across the different projects emerged, suggesting some congruence at an international level.…”

Fear of self in eating disorders

“…Preliminary work identifying the feared self domains of the client may help to identify feared outcomes specific to the individual, in particular those that go beyond the fear of weight gain, which may help to increase the efficacy of exposure-based interventions for individuals with EDs. Furthermore, qualitative studies have the benefit of being informed by the lived experience of individuals with EDs, which can be a helpful addition to expert knowledge (e.g., Hart & Wade, 2020). Another method for assessing the nature of feared self themes in EDs is the development of measures assessing a range of ED-specific fears.…”