Evidence Hub

Eating disorder treatment programs compared to controls for adolescents and young adults: Systematic review and three-level meta-analyses

Arbit SE, Kirsch AC, Nowakowski L, Meagher MF, Karl AN, Blum AL, Assink M, Conley CS

Eating behaviors, 2026

Abstract

Rates of eating disorders are on the rise among young people, and there is growing concern about the ability of existing treatment options to meet the evolving needs of this population. This underscores the urgent need to evaluate (a) the current state of the literature, and (b) the effectiveness of interventions tailored to adolescents and young adults (AYAs), a population uniquely vulnerable to the onset and chronic progression of untreated eating disorders. This paper presents a systematic and meta-analytic review of psychological (non-biological/pharmacological) interventions compared to control conditions for eating disorders (EDs) in AYAs. A systematic search was conducted in PsycInfo, PubMed, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses for studies published between January 1980 and March 2024. Supplemented by various other search methods, we identified 53 interventions, contained within 41 reports, yielding an overall sample size of 3140. Studies were evaluated using elements of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Analyses were conducted using three-level, random effects models. Results indicated that, compared to controls, interventions targeting anorexia nervosa (AN), bulimia nervosa (BN), binge eating disorder (BED), and a blend of ED diagnoses among AYAs were effective for a range of ED outcomes, with maintenance of effects at follow-up: Hedges' g across interventions targeting AN = 0.202 (0.051; 0.352), BN = 0.467 (0.241; 0.693), BED = 0.601 (0.294; 0.908), and a blend of…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free