ArticleJournal of eating disorders2026
Collaboration in team outpatient eating disorder care: clinician's perspectives.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines recommend team outpatient eating disorder treatment, yet the organisation and delivery of team care vary considerably in practice. This qualitative study explored clinicians’ attitudes toward and experiences of team outpatient eating disorder treatment, including multidisciplinary and interprofessional care. Nineteen Australian clinicians (dietitians, mental health professionals, and general practitioners) with at least two years’ experience working in outpatient eating disorder teams participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s reflexive thematic analysis. Three themes and three sub-themes were identified. Theme 1, Preference for Interprofessional Ways of Working, captured clinicians’ preference for highly integrated and collaborative approaches, including perceived benefits for team functioning, clinician wellbeing, and client care; the related sub-theme Dismantle Systemic Hierarchies to Foster Trust, Respect, and Collaboration highlighted structural barriers to collaboration. Theme 2, Interprofessional Education (IPE) as the Foundation for Collaborative Practice, emphasised IPE as a key enabler of collaborative capacity; while its sub-theme IPE Develops Shared Philosophies and Values described the role of IPE in developing shared conceptual and philosophical foundations for collaborative care. Theme 3, Communication as the Strategy for Sustaining Collaborative Practice, underscored communication as central to day-to-day coordination; its sub-theme Leverage Role Overlap Through Effective Communication illustrated how communication supported role integration. Overall, clinicians described highly collaborative team care as desirable, and shaped by education, communication infrastructure, and systemic constraints. Future research should examine approaches to strengthen interprofessional education, improve communication systems and structures, and support collaboration within existing treatment models and service contexts.
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.