Understanding drift in the treatment of eating disorders using a mixed-methods approach

Despite strong empirical support for treatments of eating disorders, research has demonstrated a trend of clinicians deviating from protocols outlined in empirically supported manuals. The present study used a convergent mixed-methods design to understand clinicians' use of and drift from empirically supported treatments in a sample of 114 licensed clinicians in the US who had substantial experience (i.e. one-third of caseload) working with patients with eating disorders and training in cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), family-based therapy (FBT), and/or interpersonal therapy (IPT) for eating disorders. Results revealed that 63.7-76.3% of clinicians drift from empirically supported treatments and 71.8% were aware they deviated from empirically supported treatments. Qualitative analyses identified client differences (57.2%) to be the primary reason why clinicians drift, with less participants describing therapist factors (20.4%), treatment shortcomings (12.6%), treatment setting (11.7%), logistic constraints (4.9%) and family factors (4.9%) as reasons why they drift. These findings suggest that drift for most clinicians may be better explained under the umbrella of evidence-based practice. Clinicians also identified a number of ways in which treatment and access to treatment can be improved. This broadened understanding of the use of empirically supported treatments within evidence-based practice may serve to help bridge the gap between research and practice.

Automated summary

Despite empirical support for eating disorder treatments, many clinicians deviate from recommended protocols. This study examined 114 licensed clinicians in the US with experience in treating eating disorders, finding that 63.7-76.3% of clinicians drift from evidence-based treatments. Client differences were the primary reason for drift, with treatment settings and logistic constraints also playing a role. The study highlights the need to bridge the gap between research and practice in order to improve treatment effectiveness.