Evidence Hub

The impact of incorporating an eating disorder screening tool and an eating disorder diagnostic workshop in outpatient general psychiatry settings in publicly insured populations: a case series

Murray SB, Friedlich CE, Kesheshian T

Eating disorders, 2026

165 participants · 1 citation

Abstract

ABSTRACT With an elevated prevalence of disordered eating in low-income settings, efforts to optimize the detection of eating disorders (EDs) in such settings are necessary. A significant barrier relates to the scarcity of training for clinicians not working in specialized ED settings. This manuscript assessed the impact of an ED screening tool and an ED assessment workshop upon the detection of EDs in publicly insured psychiatry settings. Leveraging a case series design to assess 165 consecutive adult patients in outpatient psychiatry settings, we indexed the prevalence of ED diagnoses rendered by psychiatrists when assessing patients (i) without prior knowledge of ED symptoms, (ii) after being made aware of patient scores from an ED screening measure, and (iii) after undergoing an ED assessment workshop, and being made aware of patient screening scores. While 27% of the sample reported clinically significant ED symptoms on the screening measure, ED diagnoses were only rendered in 2% of the sample when psychiatrists were not made aware of ED symptoms prior to assessment. In contrast, incorporating a screening tool altered the rates of ED diagnoses, with 18% of the sample receiving an ED diagnosis. Moreover, the combinatorial introduction of both the ED screening measure and an ED assessment workshop further altered diagnostic practice—with this resulting in ED diagnoses in 27% of the sample. The findings suggest that ED screening and training workshops can have significant…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a case series, done in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 165 participants or records.

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