Hayley H Estrem, Jaclyn L Pederson, Pamela Dodrill, Cuyler Romeo, Kelsey Thompson, Jennifer J Thomas, Nancy Zucker, Richard Noel, Hana Zickgraf, Jessie Menzel, Colleen T Lukens, Praveen S Goday, Sarah MacLaughlin, William G Sharp
{"title":"A US-Based Consensus on Diagnostic Overlap and Distinction for Pediatric Feeding Disorder and Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder.","authors":"Hayley H Estrem, Jaclyn L Pederson, Pamela Dodrill, Cuyler Romeo, Kelsey Thompson, Jennifer J Thomas, Nancy Zucker, Richard Noel, Hana Zickgraf, Jessie Menzel, Colleen T Lukens, Praveen S Goday, Sarah MacLaughlin, William G Sharp","doi":"10.1002/eat.24349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>As diagnoses covering dysfunctional feeding and eating in pediatrics, avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and pediatric feeding disorder (PFD) contain inherent areas of overlap in their diagnostic criteria. Areas of overlap include criteria regarding nutritional consequences associated with feeding/eating dysfunction and shared emphasis on possible psychosocial impairment associated with restricted food intake. Complicating the differential diagnosis process is a lack of guidance regarding when the two conditions occur independently, co-qualify, and/or transition into the other. Feeding Matters' Research Initiatives Task Force planned and hosted a PFD-ARFID consensus meeting, with the aim of reaching a consensus regarding diagnostic clarity on PFD and ARFID.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Criteria for participation focused on US residents who either: (a) served as an author on the ARFID workgroup or PFD consensus papers, or (b) provided community representation via board or committee roles. The consensus process followed three stages: prework, the meeting, and post-work/writing. Twelve participants were present for the meeting, with 14 involved in pre- and post-work/writing.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final panel included four psychologists representing the ARFID community and seven multidisciplinary members representing PFD's four domains (medical, nutrition, skill, and psychosocial) plus a Zero-to-Three community representative and two representatives from Feeding Matters. Results yielded 10 consensus statements and visuals to support the consensus statements.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>The consensus process and results underscore an ongoing need to improve diagnostic systems and reinforce calls for strengthening healthcare expertise for both PFD and ARFID. Community-based participatory research is recommended to advance both diagnoses and reduce ambiguity in practice settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":51067,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Eating Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.24349","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NUTRITION & DIETETICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: As diagnoses covering dysfunctional feeding and eating in pediatrics, avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) and pediatric feeding disorder (PFD) contain inherent areas of overlap in their diagnostic criteria. Areas of overlap include criteria regarding nutritional consequences associated with feeding/eating dysfunction and shared emphasis on possible psychosocial impairment associated with restricted food intake. Complicating the differential diagnosis process is a lack of guidance regarding when the two conditions occur independently, co-qualify, and/or transition into the other. Feeding Matters' Research Initiatives Task Force planned and hosted a PFD-ARFID consensus meeting, with the aim of reaching a consensus regarding diagnostic clarity on PFD and ARFID.
Method: Criteria for participation focused on US residents who either: (a) served as an author on the ARFID workgroup or PFD consensus papers, or (b) provided community representation via board or committee roles. The consensus process followed three stages: prework, the meeting, and post-work/writing. Twelve participants were present for the meeting, with 14 involved in pre- and post-work/writing.
Results: The final panel included four psychologists representing the ARFID community and seven multidisciplinary members representing PFD's four domains (medical, nutrition, skill, and psychosocial) plus a Zero-to-Three community representative and two representatives from Feeding Matters. Results yielded 10 consensus statements and visuals to support the consensus statements.
Discussion: The consensus process and results underscore an ongoing need to improve diagnostic systems and reinforce calls for strengthening healthcare expertise for both PFD and ARFID. Community-based participatory research is recommended to advance both diagnoses and reduce ambiguity in practice settings.
期刊介绍:
Articles featured in the journal describe state-of-the-art scientific research on theory, methodology, etiology, clinical practice, and policy related to eating disorders, as well as contributions that facilitate scholarly critique and discussion of science and practice in the field. Theoretical and empirical work on obesity or healthy eating falls within the journal’s scope inasmuch as it facilitates the advancement of efforts to describe and understand, prevent, or treat eating disorders. IJED welcomes submissions from all regions of the world and representing all levels of inquiry (including basic science, clinical trials, implementation research, and dissemination studies), and across a full range of scientific methods, disciplines, and approaches.