Table 5 Summary of key data extracted from sources included in this systematic review
From: Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) in New Zealand and Australia: a scoping review
Case reports | Treatment interventions | Cross-sectional studies | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
(Clinical) | (Clinical) | (Clinical) | (Non-Clinical) | |
Number of Studies | 4 | 15 | 1 | 8 |
Sample (n) range | 1 | 1–32 | 10 | 66–6156 |
Age range (y) | 11–64 | 2–42 | > 16 | 5-Adulthood* |
Gender | 50% F | 28% F | 100% F | 44% F^ |
Engagement method | Clinical assessment | In-home Intervention Telehealth Face to face clinic sessions | Retrospective clinical data collation | Face-to-face interviews Face-to-face computer assisted personal interview Questionnaires Online survey Vignette-based online survey In person study measure completion |
Assessment Instruments | Montréal Cognitive Assessment DSM-5 ED assessment | MINI EDE-Q DASS-21 | – | SF12v1 FFQ EDE MMPI-2-RF EDDS-DSM-5 |
Other measures | Nutritional blood screen MRI CT scan DEXA bone scan Neurological status Neuropsychology examination BMI X-ray Physical examination Dietary history Background history | BMI Measures relating to food consumption and treatment acceptability Caregiver satisfaction | Diagnosis Demographics Relapse/readmission rates Length of stay BMI Refeeding method Medical complications | ARFID-related questions Demographics Physical HRQoL Diagnosis Comorbidity Management Short-term outcomes Anthropometrics Background history |
Key Findings | Health consequences of ARFID can be varied, severe, and irreversible if not addressed. | Interventions implemented included: CBT Behaviour analytic treatment FBT + UP-C/A Caregivers prioritised quick and effective treatments over minimising side-effects. Behaviour analytic treatments had high caregiver acceptability ratings. | Only one study reported clinical cases, and these were adults. Clinical cross-sectional studies are urgently required. | Clinicians rated ICD-11 favourably. An ARFID vignette resulted in multiple diagnoses under the ICD-10 condition. When presented with a typical case vignette suggestive of ARFID, the majority of NZ health professional respondents did not label the case as ARFID in a multichoice answer, and 89.7% said there was “no consensus” on a label. ARFID prevalence in South Australians was 1 in 300, and is associated with poorer mental HRQoL and significant functional impairments (compared to those without an ED). HSUV for individuals with ARFID is low (0.74), secondary only to those with threshold ED (0.68). Prevalence of severe fussy eating in NZ children = 1.9–2.8%. |