A US‐Based Consensus on Diagnostic Overlap and Distinction for Pediatric Feeding Disorder and Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder.
Saved in:
| Title: | A US‐Based Consensus on Diagnostic Overlap and Distinction for Pediatric Feeding Disorder and Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Estrem, Hayley H., Pederson, Jaclyn L., Dodrill, Pamela, Romeo, Cuyler, Thompson, Kelsey, Thomas, Jennifer J., Zucker, Nancy, Noel, Richard, Zickgraf, Hana, Menzel, Jessie, Lukens, Colleen T., Goday, Praveen S., MacLaughlin, Sarah, Sharp, William G. |
| Source: | International Journal of Eating Disorders. Mar2025, Vol. 58 Issue 3, p489-499. 11p. |
| Subjects: | Diagnosis of eating disorders, Consensus (Social sciences), Work, Meetings, Psychologists, Communities, Authors, Committees, Patient participation, Written communication |
| 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Eating Disorders is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02763478 |
| DOI: | 10.1002/eat.24349 |
