ArticleBehavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Implementation Fidelity in Early Intervention for Eating Disorders-A Multisite Pilot Study.
Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
First Episode Rapid Early Intervention for Eating Disorders (FREED) is an early intervention service model and care pathway for young people aged 16-25 with a recent-onset eating disorder. This multi-site study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a newly developed implementation fidelity tool and observe patterns of fidelity to FREED. Six eating disorder services across England took part in an assessment. Data were collected from 242 patient referrals between January and June 2025 and via semi-structured interviews with FREED staff. Total fidelity scores were calculated alongside two component scores (rapid access to the service and early intervention care package), and inter-rater agreement was assessed. The tool was feasible to use across multiple services, time efficient, aligned with existing workflows, and demonstrated high inter-rater agreement. The average fidelity score across services was 72% ('medium fidelity'). The average component scores were 57% for rapid access targets ('not satisfactory') and 77% for early intervention care package ('medium fidelity'). Rapid access target scores were highly variable across services (20-87%), whereas care package scores were more consistent (72-82%). Additional sustained resource augmentation is needed to improve model adherence and facilitate consistent access to high-quality early intervention for eating disorders, including support to meet rapid access targets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.