ArticleJournal of eating disorders2026
Development and evaluation of a web-based toolkit to inform mental health professionals about digital mental health interventions for eating disorders.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEating disorders (EDs) are serious mental disorders that often remain untreated for many years. Digital mental health interventions could provide low-threshold support especially in underserved areas. However, the knowledge of mental health professionals (MHPs), who could integrate such interventions into routine care, is still limited.
objectiveThis study aimed at the development and evaluation of a web-based toolkit to provide evidence-based knowledge about digital interventions for EDs for MHPs.
methodsA mixed methods design was chosen to iteratively evaluate the toolkit. First, three focus groups with 16 MHPs were conducted, who tested the toolkit and gave feedback. Then, N = 66 MHPs completed an online survey with self-developed questionnaires on the perceived quality of the toolkit and its modules. Further, several scales were used to measure website clarity (Web-CLIC), visual aesthetics (VisAWI-S), system usability (SUS), e-therapy attitudes (ETAM) and elements of the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT).
resultsThe focus groups resulted in a number of suggestions that were used to improve the toolkit. The results of the quantitative study showed that the toolkit reached high ratings in website clarity, visual aesthetics and system usability. E-therapy attitudes were positive in 51 (77.3%) cases. While perceived usefulness was M = 2.75 (SD = 0.62, range = 1-3.86), relative advantage remained lower with M = 1.08 (SD = 0.54, range = 0-2.5). Results following the concept of UTAUT, showed a medium Behavioural Intention to use digital interventions for their patients with M = 3.60 (SD = 1.01) and a medium Performance Expectancy of M = 3.50 (SD = 0.93) with lower values for anorexia nervosa than for other kinds of EDs.
conclusionsIn general, MHPs show positive attitudes towards the use of digital interventions for patients with EDs to complement conventional psychotherapy. However, there is also a clear need for more knowledge in the field. The web-based toolkit may serve as a promising educational resource to meet the needs of MHPs. The effectiveness of the toolkit regarding learning success can be tested in future studies.
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.