Next Article in Journal
The Role of Vascular Risk Factors in Post-Stroke Delirium: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Next Article in Special Issue
Advances in the Aetiology and Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa
Previous Article in Journal
The Evolution of Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty and Its Current Use in the Treatment of Proximal Humerus Fractures in the Older Population
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Can Animal Models Inform the Understanding of Cognitive Inflexibility in Patients with Anorexia Nervosa?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 11
Issue 19
10.3390/jcm11195833
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Diet, Digestion, and the Dietitian: A Survey of Clinicians’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices to Advance the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disturbances in Individuals with Anorexia Nervosa

by
Madeline L. West
1,*,
Caitlin McMaster
2,3,
Claire L. Young
1,
Mohammadreza Mohebbi
4,
Susan Hart
3,5,
Heidi M. Staudacher
1,
Amy Loughman
1,
Anu Ruusunen
1,6,7 and
Tetyana Rocks
1,3
1
Food & Mood Centre, IMPACT—The Institute for Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Translation, School of Medicine, Barwon Health, Deakin University, Geelong 3220, Australia
2
Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Westmead 2145, Australia
3
Eating and Nutrition Research Group, School of Medicine, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown 2560, Australia
4
Faculty of Health, Biostatistics Unit, Deakin University, Geelong 3216, Australia
5
Nutrition Services, St Vincent’s Health Network, Darlinghurst 2010, Australia
6
Institute of Public Health and Clinical Nutrition, University of Eastern Finland, 70211 Kuopio, Finland
7
Department of Psychiatry, Kuopio University Hospital, 70210 Kuopio, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11(19), 5833; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195833
Submission received: 17 August 2022 / Revised: 27 September 2022 / Accepted: 29 September 2022 / Published: 30 September 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in the Aetiology and Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Despite advances in treatment of anorexia nervosa (AN), current therapeutic approaches do not fully consider gastrointestinal disturbances (GID), often present in AN. Addressing GID, both symptoms and disorders, is likely to improve treatment adherence and outcomes in people with AN. GID are complex and are linked to a range of factors related to eating disorder symptomology and can be impacted by nutritional treatment. It is not known which dietetic practices are currently used to address GID in AN. Therefore, this survey aimed to explore the perceived knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of Australian dietitians treating AN and co-occurring GID. Seventy dietitians participated by completing an online survey. Knowledge scores were calculated based on correct responses to knowledge items (total: 12 points); and two groups were generated: higher knowledge (≥10 points, n = 31) and lower knowledge (≤9 points, n = 39). A greater proportion of dietitians with higher knowledge recognized the role of GID in pathogenesis of AN (p = 0.002) and its impact on quality of life (p = 0.013) and screened for GID (p ≤ 0.001), compared with those with lower knowledge. These results suggest that attitudes and practices toward patients presenting with AN and GID differ depending on level of knowledge. This may have important implications for treatment outcomes for individuals with AN and GID.

1. Introduction

Gastrointestinal disturbances (GID) are common experiences for individuals living with anorexia nervosa (AN) [1,2]. AN has a low recovery rate and the highest mortality rate of all psychiatric disorders [3]. Thus, advances in treatment to improve outcomes, including treatment of GID, are vital. Almost always GID have no underlying structural cause and can present as functional symptoms [4], such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), abdominal pain or constipation. The relationship between GID and AN is complex, and the aetiology is unclear. The presence of gastrointestinal (GI) problems during childhood is a risk factor for the later emergence of AN [5], so some individuals may experience GID before the onset of AN. Whereas for others, the experience of GID may present as a culmination of disordered eating behaviours and psychological distress [6,7]. However, it is well documented that whilst GID presentation may change or improve during inpatient care [8,9], for many people symptoms persist after treatment for AN [10]. Therefore, greater consideration is needed regarding how GID may be targeted in the treatment of AN to improve outcomes.
GI-related problems are the leading cause of hospital admission in young people with eating disorders (ED) [11] and may be related to worse quality of life [12]. Additionally, GID also contribute to several aspects of AN, including poor body image where an individual’s attention is disproportionately focussed on the abdomen [13], and feelings of fullness and bloating can trigger body image distress [14]; poor adherence to treatment as GID have been identified as a reason for treatment refusal [15]; and, it has been hypothesized that GID may also contribute to overall treatment success [6,16]. Commonly, GID are believed to resolve with weight restoration, and specific treatment approaches have not been rigorously tested. Although their efficacy is unclear, medications including prokinetic agents, smooth muscle relaxants and laxatives may be used to manage GID in AN, providing symptom relief to facilitate adherence to nutritional treatments [17]. Emerging evidence suggests the use of brain–gut psychotherapies [18], and the need for novel renourishment techniques that address the underlying altered GI physiology [19]. To inform appropriate treatments, the effectiveness of current GID treatment strategies in people with AN must be evaluated.
In general, treatment for AN primarily involves medical stabilisation, nutritional rehabilitation, and weight restoration, accompanied by psychological support [20]. GID presence and severity can be influenced by a range of biopsychosocial factors, including psychological distress, mood, malnutrition, dietary intake, and exercise [4]. Hence, the various components of multidisciplinary treatment for an ED may also influence GID, but the relationships between these components and the extent to which they may influence GID have not yet been investigated. Of particular interest is the effect of dietary treatment on GID in people with AN.
Addressing GID is within dietetic scope of practice [21]; however, it is unclear which dietetic treatments are currently used to address GID in people with AN. Individuals with AN are diagnosed with IBS more often than the general population [22]. In otherwise healthy individuals with IBS, dietary modifications such as the low FODMAP (fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols) diet, which restricts specific foods high in fermentable carbohydrates for a short period of time, has good efficacy for reducing IBS symptoms [23]. However, such exclusion diets are often not appropriate for individuals with AN and co-occurring IBS [24], who are working toward overcoming rigid food rules and food restrictions [20], but whether they are used in practice is unknown. Functional constipation is also commonly experienced by individuals with AN [25,26]. For constipation, increased fibre intake and adequate fluid are often recommended [27]. Increasing dietary fibre in individuals with AN needs to be implemented with caution as high fibre foods are usually not energy dense and are likely to contribute to the sensation of fullness, both of which could compromise meeting nutrient targets for AN recovery [28,29]. Dietetic management of GID in individuals with AN has not been investigated and it is unclear what techniques, if any, are being utilised in practice.
Given the scant literature exploring dietetic management of GID in individuals with AN, little is known of dietitians’ knowledge and attitudes around the topic, or what dietetic therapies are being used. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of dietitians treating individuals with AN and co-occurring GID, and to explore the relationship between knowledge and attitudes, and knowledge and practices.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This cross-sectional online survey used convenience sampling to recruit Australian Dietitians in February and March 2022.

2.2. Participants

Participants were eligible for registration as an Accredited Practising Dietitian (APD), and had current or recent experience treating patients with a diagnosis of AN. The study was advertised to dietitians via the Dietitians Australia weekly newsletter and the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Eating Disorders website. Advertisements were also posted on the study team’s personal and affiliate social media pages.
Dietitians were provided with a plain language statement explaining the study procedures. Participants were screened online and gave their consent digitally if they were eligible and wished to participate in the study. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymous. Deakin University’s Human Ethics Advisory Group, Faculty of Health, approved the study protocol (HEAG-H 119_2021) and the study was prospectively registered with Open Science Framework (OSF) registry (registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YNTW9). A target sample size of n = 70 dietitians was determined based on a conservative estimate that 5% of the Dietitians Australia eating disorders interest group (n = 1400 members of a total n = 7990 dietitians) would agree to participate.

2.3. Survey Instrument

We developed the 32-item Dietitians Anorexia Nervosa Gastrointestinal Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Survey (ANGI-KAPS). This was guided by published knowledge, attitude and practices (KAP) literature [30,31] as well as previous studies of dietitian KAPs [32,33], and other health professionals KAPs of GID [34] or EDs [35]. The ANGI-KAPS tool was designed to assess the knowledge, attitudes and practices of ED dietitians treating individuals with AN and GID. The survey was developed in a two-step process. In brief, step one was instrument design, performed by: (i) a review of the literature and validated tools to identify topic areas of interest, (ii) item generation, and (iii) piloting by dietitians with expertise in ED (n = 3) and GID (n = 2). The pilot panel were asked to rate each item as satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and to provide comments for items rated unsatisfactory [30]. Items that received any number of unsatisfactory ratings were re-considered by the research team, as were comments and suggestions provided. Following the pilot panel review, the research team revised the instrument to 33 items (9 knowledge, 11 attitudes, 8 practices, 3 KAP gut microbiome items). Step two was evaluation of face validity and content validity, conducted in collaboration with a panel of expert ED dietitians who were (1) eligible for registration as an accredited practising dietitian, (2) currently working with individuals with an ED, and (3) living in Australia. Mean years practising as a dietitian was 21.8 years (SD ± 13.02) and the mean years treating individuals with AN was 16.4 years (SD ± 9.13). Participants reviewed each item in the ANGI-KAPS tool and were asked to rate the items for relevance, essentiality, and clarity [36]. At the completion of the validation step, the final instrument contained 32 items (9 knowledge items, 11 attitude items, 9 practice idents, and 3 KAP gut microbiome items). The final version of the survey is included as Supplementary File S1.
The ANGI-KAPS survey first collected demographic and clinical experience data from the dietitians. This included workplace setting, years of practice and additional training in psychology or GID. Proportion of work time spent with individuals with AN, and years treating AN were also collected. Knowledge items assessed knowledge about the intersection of AN and GID. Knowledge items comprised a combination of multiple choice, true-false and Likert scale questions and correct answers were calculated for a knowledge score (1 point for each correct answer). Attitude and practice items were multiple choice or Likert scale (agreeability: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = somewhat disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = somewhat agree, 5 = strongly agree; or frequency: 1 = none of the time, 2 = some of the time, 3 = not sure, 4 = most of the time, 5 = all of the time) questions.
Data were collected anonymously via the secure Deakin University QualtricsTM platform.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for participant demographics and knowledge, attitudes and practices. A knowledge score was calculated by summing the number of correct answers to knowledge items (9 items, maximum score of 12). Participants were grouped based on their level of knowledge (higher knowledge or lower knowledge), determined by a median split. Individuals with scores ≥ 10 points were allocated to the higher knowledge group, and those with scores ≤ 9 were allocated to the lower knowledge group.
Chi-square tests assessed the difference in responses to attitude and practice items between groups with higher and lower knowledge. Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to aid the interpretation of chi-square tests. The difference in Likert scale responses to attitude and practice items was assessed by estimating the mean difference and 95% confidence intervals between knowledge groups via independent samples t-tests. p-values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant, and Cohen’s D of d = 0.2 was considered a ‘small’ effect size, 0.5 was considered a ‘medium’ effect size and 0.8 was considered a ‘large’ effect size [37]. Statistical analyses were completed using STATA [38].

3. Results

Seventy dietitians (91% female) completed the survey. Participants were grouped based on higher (≥10 points, n = 31) and lower knowledge (≤9 points, n = 39) of AN and GID, as measured by the survey. The median knowledge score was 9 (1–12). There were no differences between groups for years of practising as a dietitian or years of experience treating individuals with AN. More dietitians worked in private practice in the higher knowledge group compared with the lower knowledge group (77% vs. 44%, p = 0.004). A significantly greater proportion of dietitians in the higher knowledge group had received formal training in the treatment of AN (p = 0.031) and formal training in the treatment of co-occurring AN and GID (p = 0.011) compared with the lower knowledge group, see Table 1.

3.1. Attitudes

Responses to attitudes items are presented in Table 2. Compared to the lower knowledge group, a greater proportion of dietitians in the higher knowledge group identified GID as playing a role in the pathogenesis of AN (77% vs. 41%, p = 0.002, OR: 4.93 (1.71, 14.17)) and impacting on quality of life (100% vs. 82%, p = 0.013). Further, a greater proportion of dietitians in the higher knowledge group believed that GID can encourage ED behaviours (97% vs. 77%, p = 0.018, OR: 9.00 (1.07, 75.51)), complicate treatment (97% vs. 79%, p = 0.032, OR: 7.74 (0.091, 65.71)) and be a conditioned response to feared foods (68% vs. 46%, p = 0.015, OR: 3.36 (1.25, 9.06)). Those in the higher knowledge group were also more likely to strongly agree that patients perceive GID as a barrier to achieving recovery compared with the lower knowledge group (4.52 (0.63) vs. 4.03 (0.84) p = 0.009, d = −0.65 (−1.13, 0.16)).

3.2. Practices

Several differences were observed between higher and lower knowledge groups in relation to screening practices and treatments implemented (Table 3). Dietitians in the higher knowledge group were more likely to frequently screen patients for GIDs than the lower knowledge group, with a significant and large effect size (4.19 (1.08); 3.15 (1.27) p ≤ 0.001, d = −0.88 (−1.37, −0.38)). Treatment practices more likely to be adopted by dietitians in the higher knowledge group compared with the lower knowledge group included suggesting the use of anti-diarrheal agents (22% vs. 3%, p = 0.009; OR: 11.08 (1.28, 95.79)), recommending use of gut-directed hypnotherapy (52% vs. 18%, p = 0.003; OR: 4.88 (1.66, 14.35)), provision of reassurance (90% vs. 66%, p = 0.027; OR: 5.38 (1.08, 26.92)), and suggesting consultation with a psychologist (55% vs. 23%, p = 0.009; OR: 3.92 (1.38, 11.15). In general, dietitians in the higher knowledge group felt more confident approaching a patient with co-occurring GID and AN compared with lower knowledge, with a medium effect size (3.62 (0.091) p ≤ 0.006, d = −0.69 (−1.17, −0.20)). However, there was no difference in confidence in the ability to treat co-occurring GID and AN between groups (3.84 (0.90); 3.51 (0.85) p = 0.13, d = −0.37 (−0.85, 0.10)).

4. Discussion

This is the first study to investigate dietitians’ knowledge, attitudes and practices about GID in individuals with AN. Overall, dietitians with higher knowledge, as measured by our survey, had greater insight into the complexity of GID in AN, and more confidence approaching GID in individuals with AN. Together, these attributes of dietitians with higher knowledge may encourage the provision of holistic and supportive care.
Firstly, attitudes that differed between dietitians with higher and lower knowledge of GID and AN, related to the impact of GID on an individual’s disorder experience and its impact on quality of life. These attitudes may be important to establish a shared understanding of the individuals’ experiences and lay the foundations for a strong therapeutic relationship [39]. Healthcare providers often report challenges in developing therapeutic relationships with individuals with EDs [40,41]. Frequent relapses [42], treatment ambivalence [43], disorder complexity and feeling helpless [44] are often reported as barriers. The presence of GID may add further complexity as stigma and shame are frequent experiences for individuals with functional GI disorders [45] and also for treatment seeking in AN. In such individuals, an effective therapeutic relationship improves patient satisfaction, symptom management and clinical outcomes [46]. Additionally, therapeutic relationships that are built on trust and honest communication may reduce symptom-related anxieties [47]. This may translate to individuals with EDs as heightened visceral sensitivity and GI-specific anxiety are often present [29,48]. Given that dietitians with higher knowledge scores on our survey were more understanding of the interference of GID on AN and quality of life, this may help to strengthen the clinician-patient relationship, which, in turn, can have a positive influence on health outcomes [49].
Secondly, dietitians who scored higher on our knowledge score were more likely to engage in practices that seek to identify GID, communicate information about GID and recommend specific treatments to their patients. Considerations relevant to GID are outlined in practice and training standards for ED dietitians in Australia [50] which include obtaining ‘history of gastrointestinal signs and symptoms in the context of the eating disorder and comorbidities’. Results from the current survey suggest that dietitians who scored lower on our knowledge score may not be aware of the need to investigate for GID; less than 40% of total participants reported screening for GID using tools listed in our survey. Several participants reported using their own clinical judgement, or personally developed tools to identify GID, which may suggest a lack of knowledge of validated tools for this purpose. Participants reported using a range of practices to address GID, including referral to gastroenterologists, advice on meal timing and pre- or post-meal activities. Differences between higher and lower knowledge groups emerged in the suggestions of anti-diarrhoeal agents and gut-directed hypnotherapy. Dietitians who scored higher on our knowledge score were more likely to suggest the use of gut-directed hypnotherapy, which works by targeting the stress response to GID [18]. This may suggest heightened awareness of the role of the gut-brain axis in GID, and AN more broadly. Additionally, significantly fewer dietitians in the lower knowledge group, compared with the higher knowledge group, believed that GID education should be provided by the dietitian. Nutritional counselling for managing symptoms such as constipation, bloating and reflux has been identified as an essential component of outpatient dietetic treatment by ED dietitians, clinicians, consumers and carers [51]. However, our results suggest a significant portion of dietitians may not believe this is part of a dietitian’s role. Furthermore, the assessment and counselling for managing GID is not featured in ED treatment guidelines [52]. While the ANZAED Dietetic Practice Standards suggest GID as a topic that may be relevant for education [50], the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists note that reassurance around GID is a required action [20]. This gap in guidelines may explain differences in practice and highlights the need for a specific framework to guide assessment and intervention.
Findings from this study suggest practice and attitudes of dietitians might differ depending on level of knowledge of the role GID might play in ED. Knowledge has been identified as an important component of dietetic clinical decision-making [53]. Additionally, knowledge is important for clinician adherence to treatment guidelines [54]. Importantly, many dietitians report the need for further training in the treatment of ED [55,56], and findings from the present survey suggest around half of the dietitians surveyed could improve their knowledge of GID in AN. The provision of training and education for identifying and managing GID in AN may improve the capacity of dietitians to deliver tailored therapy to individuals with AN, from screening to treatment. The inclusion of GID within dietetic and other clinical ED guidelines would also formalize expected knowledge and support the widespread inclusion of GID management strategies for AN into dietetic and professional training.
Implementation of routine assessment of GID within the dietetic treatment of AN offers the potential to improve treatment outcomes. Although the efficacy of current dietetic treatment for GID in AN have not been evaluated, malnutrition has a direct impact on the physiology of the GI tract, including altering motility [57]. Furthermore, engagement in ED behaviours, such as restriction and purging are directly related to GID presence [1]. Therefore, normalizing eating behaviours and hence, food consumption, has consequences for both the function of the GI tract and GID, and should be considered when planning nutritional treatment. To improve response to treatment, dietetic recommendations should be tailored to ensure practices are not exacerbating GID.
The strengths of this study include the reporting of novel data investigating dietitians’ knowledge, attitudes and practices in treating individuals with AN and GID. The data from the present study provide vital insights into attitudes and practices of dietitians managing individuals with AN, specifically relating to GID. Furthermore, the survey tool was developed and validated especially for the purposes of this study, and so it is relevant to the target population of Australian dietitians. The sample of dietitians recruited for this study is representative of the largely female workforce in Australia where approximately 95% of dietitians identify as female [58]. However, a limitation of this study is that the survey did not collect other demographic characteristics to enable a more thorough comparison to the Australian workforce, such as age, weekly hours worked, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Status or country of birth.
Further limitations of this study include the small sample size. Whilst the target sample size was achieved, surveying a greater number of dietitians would have improved the statistical power. Additionally, knowledge group cut-off scores were determined a priori (higher knowledge group scores ≥ 7; lower knowledge scores ≤ 6), however, after reviewing the distribution of data, which was skewed toward higher knowledge scores, the study team decided it more appropriate to use a median split. Lastly, limitations in the survey itself must also be acknowledged. The survey is newly developed and has not been widely used. The survey questions asked participants about their usual practice but did not consider usual practices for varying levels of illness severity. Furthermore, many participants worked across multiple settings, so it is unlikely participants were drawing from the same experiences when completing the survey. Future studies may aim to capture this nuance by asking participants about how they treat GID in different settings or including case vignettes.

5. Conclusions

Results from this survey document Australian dietitians’ current knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding GID in individuals living with AN. Data show that dietitians with higher knowledge, as measured by our survey, have a greater understanding of the impact of GID in AN and may provide more holistic and supportive care. Given the frequent and debilitating GID in individuals with AN, dietitians need to be knowledgeable and confident in addressing GID in this patient group, in order to optimise treatment outcomes.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm11195833/s1, Supplementary File S1: AN-GI KAPS Survey (Final version).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.L.W., T.R. and A.R.; methodology, M.L.W., C.M., S.H., M.M., T.R. and A.R.; software, C.L.Y. and M.L.W.; validation, M.L.W. and M.M.; formal analysis, M.L.W. and M.M.; writing—original draft preparation, M.L.W.; writing—review and editing, M.L.W., C.M., C.L.Y., M.M., S.H., H.M.S., A.L., A.R. and T.R.; visualization, M.L.W.; supervision, A.R., T.R., S.H., H.M.S. and A.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Deakin University on 18 August 2021 (HEAG-H 119_2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical reasons.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the pilot and validation study participants.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wiklund, C.A.; Rania, M.; Kuja-Halkola, R.; Thornton, L.M.; Bulik, C.M. Evaluating disorders of gut-brain interaction in eating disorders. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2021, 54, 925–935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Schalla, M.A.; Stengel, A. Gastrointestinal alterations in anorexia nervosa—A systematic review. Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 2019, 27, 447–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Arcelus, J.; Mitchell, A.J.; Wales, J. Mortality rates in patients with anorexia nervosa and other eating disorders: A meta-analysis of 36 studies. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 2011, 68, 724–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Drossman, D.A. Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders: History, Pathophysiology, Clinical Features and Rome IV. Gastroenterology 2016, 150, 1262–1279.e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Jacobi, C.; Hayward, C.; de Zwaan, M.; Kraemer, H.C.; Agras, W.S. Coming to terms with risk factors for eating disorders: Application of risk terminology and suggestions for a general taxonomy. Psychol. Bull. 2004, 130, 19–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Santonicola, A.; Gagliardi, M.; Guarino, M.P.L.; Siniscalchi, M.; Ciacci, C.; Iovino, P. Eating Disorders and Gastrointestinal Diseases. Nutrients 2019, 11, 3038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Zipfel, S.; Sammet, I.; Rapps, N.; Herzog, W.; Herpertz, S.; Martens, U. Gastrointestinal disturbances in eating disorders: Clinical and neurobiological aspects. Auton. Neurosci. 2006, 129, 99–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. West, M.; McMaster, C.M.; Staudacher, H.M.; Hart, S.; Jacka, F.N.; Stewart, T.; Loughman, A.; Rocks, T.; Ruusunen, A. Gastrointestinal symptoms following treatment for anorexia nervosa: A systematic literature review. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2021, 54, 936–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Riedlinger, C.; Schmidt, G.; Weiland, A.; Stengel, A.; Giel, K.E.; Zipfel, S.; Enck, P.; Mack, I. Which Symptoms, Complaints and Complications of the Gastrointestinal Tract Occur in Patients with Eating Disorders? A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boyd, C.; Abraham, S.; Kellow, J. Appearance and disappearance of functional gastrointestinal disorders in patients with eating disorders. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2010, 22, 1279–1283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Dooley-Hash, S.; Lipson, S.K.; Walton, M.A.; Cunningham, R.M. Increased emergency department use by adolescents and young adults with eating disorders. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2013, 46, 308–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Abraham, S.; Kellow, J. Exploring eating disorder quality of life and functional gastrointestinal disorders among eating disorder patients. J. Psychosom. Res. 2011, 70, 372–377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ralph-Nearman, C.; Arevian, A.C.; Moseman, S.; Sinik, M.; Chappelle, S.; Feusner, J.D.; Khalsa, S.S. Visual mapping of body image disturbance in anorexia nervosa reveals objective markers of illness severity. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 12262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Espeset, E.M.; Gulliksen, K.S.; Nordbo, R.H.; Skarderud, F.; Holte, A. Fluctuations of body images in anorexia nervosa: Patients’ perception of contextual triggers. Clin. Psychol. Psychother. 2012, 19, 518–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Lee, S.; Lee, A.M.; Ngai, E.; Lee, D.T.S.; Wing, Y.K. Rationales for food refusal in chinese patients with anorexia nervosa. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2001, 29, 224–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Janssen, P. Can eating disorders cause functional gastrointestinal disorders? Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2010, 22, 1267–1269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Blanchet, C.; Guillaume, S.; Bat-Pitault, F.; Carles, M.E.; Clarke, J.; Dodin, V.; Duriez, P.; Gerardin, P.; Hanachi-Guidoum, M.; Iceta, S.; et al. Medication in AN: A Multidisciplinary Overview of Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Wildes, J.E.; Bedell, A.; Graham, A.K.; Kells, M. Brain-gut psychotherapies: Promising tools to address gastrointestinal problems in patients with eating disorders. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2021, 54, 1063–1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zucker, N.L.; Bulik, C.M. On bells, saliva, and abdominal pain or discomfort: Early aversive visceral conditioning and vulnerability for anorexia nervosa. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2020, 53, 508–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hay, P.; Chinn, D.; Forbes, D.; Madden, S.; Newton, R.; Sugenor, L.; Touyz, S.; Ward, W.; Royal, A.; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of eating disorders. Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry 2014, 48, 977–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dietitians Australia. Gastroenterology Role Statement; Dietitians Australia: Phillip, Australia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  22. Perkins, S.J.; Keville, S.; Schmidt, U.; Chalder, T. Eating disorders and irritable bowel syndrome: Is there a link? J. Psychosom. Res. 2005, 59, 57–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Staudacher, H.M.; Whelan, K. The low FODMAP diet: Recent advances in understanding its mechanisms and efficacy in IBS. Gut 2017, 66, 1517–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Scarlata, K.; Catsos, P.; Smith, J. From a Dietitian’s Perspective, Diets for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Are Not One Size Fits All. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 18, 543–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Sileri, P.; Franceschilli, L.; De Lorenzo, A.; Mezzani, B.; Todisco, P.; Giorgi, F.; Gaspari, A.L.; Jacoangeli, F. Defecatory disorders in anorexia nervosa: A clinical study. Tech. Coloproctol. 2014, 18, 439–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Salvioli, B.; Pellicciari, A.; Iero, L.; Di Pietro, E.; Moscano, F.; Gualandi, S.; Stanghellini, V.; De Giorgio, R.; Ruggeri, E.; Franzoni, E. Audit of digestive complaints and psychopathological traits in patients with eating disorders: A prospective study. Dig. Liver Dis. 2013, 45, 639–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Lindberg, G.; Hamid, S.S.; Malfertheiner, P.; Thomsen, O.O.; Fernandez, L.B.; Garisch, J.; Thomson, A.; Goh, K.-L.M.; Tandon, R.; Fedail, S.; et al. World gastroenterology rganization global guideline: Constipation—A global perspective. J. Clin. Gastroenterol. 2011, 45, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Heruc, G.A.; Little, T.J.; Kohn, M.; Madden, S.; Clarke, S.; Horowitz, M.; Feinle-Bisset, C. Appetite Perceptions, Gastrointestinal Symptoms, Ghrelin, Peptide YY and State Anxiety Are Disturbed in Adolescent Females with Anorexia Nervosa and Only Partially Restored with Short-Term Refeeding. Nutrients 2018, 11, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Brown, T.A.; Reilly, E.E.; Murray, H.B.; Perry, T.R.; Kaye, W.H.; Wierenga, C.E. Validating the visceral sensitivity index in an eating disorder sample. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2021, 54, 986–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Andrade, C.; Menon, V.; Ameen, S.; Kumar Praharaj, S. Designing and Conducting Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Surveys in Psychiatry: Practical Guidance. Indian J. Psychol. Med. 2020, 42, 478–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kaliyaperumal, K. Guideline for Conducting a Knowledge, Attitude ad Practice (KAP) Study. AECS Illum. 2004, IV, 7–9. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hetherwick, C.; Morris, M.N.; Silliman, K. Perceived knowledge, attitudes, and practices of California registered dietitians regarding dietary supplements. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 2006, 106, 438–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Willer, F.; Hannan-Jones, M.; Strodl, E. Australian dietitians’ beliefs and attitudes towards weight loss counselling and health at every size counselling for larger-bodied clients. Nutr. Diet. 2019, 76, 407–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Heinsch, M.L.; Nightingale, S. Functional gastrointestinal disorders in children and adolescents: Knowledge, practice and attitudes of Australian paediatricians. J. Paediatr. Child Health 2019, 55, 1063–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Riaz, H.; Jones, W.R.; Donnellan, C.; Masood, M.; Saeidi, S. Knowledge and Attitudes of Gastroenterologists towards Eating Disorders. ARC J. Psychiatry 2017, 2, 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  36. Rodrigues, I.B.; Adachi, J.D.; Beattie, K.A.; MacDermid, J.C. Development and validation of a new tool to measure the facilitators, barriers and preferences to exercise in people with osteoporosis. BMC Musculoskelet. Disord. 2017, 18, 540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences; Routledge: London, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  38. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17, StataCorp LLC: College Station, TX, USA, 2021.
  39. Daly, M.; Zarate-Lopez, N. Functional gastrointestinal disorders: History taking skills in practice. Clin. Med. 2021, 21, e480–e486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Seah, X.Y.; Tham, X.C.; Kamaruzaman, N.R.; Yobas, P.K. Knowledge, Attitudes and Challenges of Healthcare Professionals Managing People with Eating Disorders: A Literature Review. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2017, 31, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Ryan, V.; Malson, H.; Clarke, S.; Anderson, G.; Kohn, M. Discursive constructions of ‘eating disorders nursing’: An analysis of nurses’ accounts of nursing eating disorder patients. Eur. Eat. Disord. Rev. 2006, 14, 125–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Davidson, A.R.; Braham, S.; Dasey, L.; Reidlinger, D.P. Physicians’ perspectives on the treatment of patients with eating disorders in the acute setting. J. Eat. Disord. 2019, 7, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Walker, S.; Lloyd, C. Barriers and attitudes health professionals working in eating disorders experience. Int. J. Ther. Rehabil. 2011, 18, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Warren, C.S.; Schafer, K.J.; Crowley, M.E.; Olivardia, R. A qualitative analysis of job burnout in eating disorder treatment providers. Eat. Disord. 2012, 20, 175–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Drossman, D.A.; Ruddy, J. Improving Patient-Provider Relationships to Improve Health Care. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol. 2020, 18, 1417–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Black, C.J.; Drossman, D.A.; Talley, N.J.; Ruddy, J.; Ford, A.C. Functional gastrointestinal disorders: Advances in understanding and management. Lancet 2020, 396, 1664–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Simons, M.; Taft, T.H.; Doerfler, B.; Ruddy, J.S.; Bollipo, S.; Nightingale, S.; Siau, K.; van Tilburg, M.A.L. Narrative review: Risk of eating disorders and nutritional deficiencies with dietary therapies for irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol. Motil. 2021, 34, e14188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Khalsa, S.S.; Berner, L.A.; Anderson, L.M. Gastrointestinal Interoception in Eating Disorders: Charting a New Path. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2022, 24, 47–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Horvath, A.O.; Del Re, A.C.; Fluckiger, C.; Symonds, D. Alliance in individual psychotherapy. Psychotherapy 2011, 48, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Heruc, G.; Hart, S.; Stiles, G.; Fleming, K.; Casey, A.; Sutherland, F.; Jeffrey, S.; Roberton, M.; Hurst, K. ANZAED practice and training standards for dietitians providing eating disorder treatment. J. Eat. Disord. 2020, 8, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. McMaster, C.M.; Wade, T.; Franklin, J.; Hart, S. Discrepancies Between Australian Eating Disorder Clinicians and Consumers Regarding Essential Components of Dietetic Treatment. J. Acad. Nutr. Diet. 2021, 122, 1543–1557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Resmark, G.; Herpertz, S.; Herpertz-Dahlmann, B.; Zeeck, A. Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa-New Evidence-Based Guidelines. J. Clin. Med. 2019, 8, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Vo, R.; Smith, M.; Patton, N. A model of the multidimensional nature of experienced dietitian clinical decision-making in the acute care setting. J. Hum. Nutr. Diet. 2020, 33, 614–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Currin, L.; Waller, G.; Schmidt, U. Primary care physicians’ knowledge of and attitudes toward the eating disorders: Do they affect clinical actions? Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2009, 42, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Denman, E.; Parker, E.K.; Ashley, M.A.; Harris, D.M.; Halaki, M.; Flood, V.; Stefoska-Needham, A. Understanding training needs in eating disorders of graduating and new graduate dietitians in Australia: An online survey. J. Eat. Disord. 2021, 9, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Trammell, E.L.; Reed, D.; Boylan, M. Education and Practice Gaps of Registered Dietitian Nutritionists Working with Clients with Eating Disorders. Top. Clin. Nutr. 2016, 31, 73–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gibson, D.; Watters, A.; Mehler, P.S. The intersect of gastrointestinal symptoms and malnutrition associated with anorexia nervosa and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Functional or pathophysiologic?-A systematic review. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2021, 54, 1019–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Health Workforce Australia. Australia’s Health Workforce Series—Dietitians in Focus; Health Workforce Australia: Adelaide, Australia, 2014. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Participant Characteristics.
Table 1. Participant Characteristics.
Higher Knowledge (n = 31)Lower Knowledge (n = 39)p-Value
Demographicn (%)
Mean (SD)		n (%)
Mean (SD)
Gender (Female)28 (90)36 (92)
Years practicing as a dietitian11.1 (8.6)14.7 (9.7)0.11
Years treating AN5.9 (5.2)8.7 (8.2)0.11
Settings treating AN
Private practice24 (77)17 (44)0.004 *
General medical hospital8 (26)16 (41)0.18
Specialized inpatient ED unit6 (19)9 (23)0.71
Specialized inpatient psychiatric facility1 (3)2 (5)0.70
Outpatient facility or program6 (19)12 (31)0.28
Online/telehealth9 (29)6 (15)0.17
Workplace setting 0.84
Urban26 (84)32 (82)
Rural5 (16)7 (18)
Proportion of working time spent with individuals with AN 0.16
0–10%6 (19)13 (33)
10–25%5 (16)10 (26)
25–50%10 (32)5 (13)
>50%10 (32)11 (28)
Age group treating
Children (<16 years)12 (39)15 (38)0.98
Young adults (16–18 years)23 (74)25 (64)0.37
Adults (>18 years)30 (97)33 (85)0.09
Training
Received formal training in treating AN28 (90)27 (69)0.03 *
Received formal training in psychological therapies19 (61)17 (44)0.09
Received formal training in treating co-occurring AN and GI17 (55)9 (23)0.01 *
* Significant differences, chi-squared test. Abbreviations: AN; anorexia nervosa, ED; eating disorder, GID; gastrointestinal disturbance.
Table
Table 2. Attitudes of dietitians with higher (n = 31) and lower (n = 39) knowledge of gastrointestinal disturbances in anorexia nervosa.
Table 2. Attitudes of dietitians with higher (n = 31) and lower (n = 39) knowledge of gastrointestinal disturbances in anorexia nervosa.
Attitude ItemHigher Knowledge
n (%)		Lower Knowledge
n (%)		p-Value^ OR 95% CI or
+ Cohen’s D (95% CI)
In functional gastrointestinal disorders, what does ‘functional’ mean to you?
Symptoms likely to have a psychosomatic basis, probably representing somatization of psychological disturbance11 (35)11 (28)0.521.40 (0.51, 3.86) ^#
A real GI disorder which is currently unexplained and poorly understood20 (65)27 (69)0.680.81 (0.30, 2.20) ^#
I believe GID play a role in the following aspects of AN:
Pathogenesis24 (77)16 (41)0.002 *4.93 (1.71, 14.17) ^#
Engagement in ED behaviours30 (97)32 (82)0.0546.56 (0.76, 56.54) ^#
Engagement in treatment30 (97)33 (85)0.0925.45 (0.62, 47.96) ^#
Response to treatment25 (80)26 (67)0.192.08 (0.69, 6.34) ^#
Medical complications21 (68)22 (56)0.331.62 (0.61, 4.34) ^#
Intestinal microbiota composition26 (84)27 (69)0.162.31 (0.71, 7.48) ^#
Achieving recovery26 (84)25 (64)0.0652.91 (0.91, 9.28) ^#
Quality of life31 (100)32 (82)0.013 *N/A
Within the medical team, I believe treatment of GID is the responsibility of:
Psychiatrist17 (55)14 (36)0.112.17 (0.83, 5.68) ^#
Nurse14 (45)12 (31)0.221.85 (0.69, 4.94) ^#
Physician27 (87)35 (90)0.730.77 (0.18, 3.37) ^#
Dietitian30 (97)32 (82)0.0546.56 (0.76, 56.55) ^#
Physiotherapist12 (39)8 (20)0.0942.45 (0.85, 7.07) ^#
Gastroenterologist29 (93)33 (85)0.2432.64 (0.49, 14.09) ^#
I believe gastrointestinal disturbances:
Are psychosomatic17 (55)14 (36)0.112.17 (0.83, 5.68) ^#
Are a symptom of disordered eating26 (84)29 (74)0.341.79 (0.54, 5.94) ^#
Are a symptom of disordered attitudes toward food and eating17 (55)17 (43)0.351.57 (0.61, 4.06) ^#
Can encourage ED behaviours30 (97)30 (77)0.018 *9.00 (1.07, 75.51) ^#
Can complicate treatment30 (97)31 (79)0.032 *7.74 (0.91, 65.71) ^#
A conditioned response to feared foods21 (68)15 (46)0.015 *3.36 (1.25, 9.06) ^#
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)
I believe the dietitian should assist in management of GID4.87 (0.34)4.64 (0.58)0.056−0.47 (−0.94, 0.012) +
Assessing, diagnosing and treating gastrointestinal disturbances is within my scope of practice as a dietitian3.77 (0.76)3.77 (0.90)0.98−0.006(−0.47, 0.47) +
I believe patients perceive GID as a barrier to achieving recovery4.52 (0.63)4.03 (0.84)0.0087−0.65 (−1.13, −0.16) +
I believe GID are a symptom of AN and will resolve over time, without specific treatment2.68 (1.01)2.85 (0.96)0.480.17 (−0.30, 0.64) +
I believe GID have major consequences for a patient’s quality of life4.81 (0.48)4.54 (0.64)0.057−0.47 (−0.94, 0.014) +
If patients report GID, I modify treatment3.03 (1.11)3.08 (1.16)0.870.039 (−0.43, 0.51) +
I believe my view and my patients’ view of their experience with GID is generally similar?3.39 (1.12)3.15 (0.99)0.36−0.22 (−0.70,0.25) +
* Significant differences; ^ OR 95% CI; + Cohen’s D (95% CI). # Reference group for odds ratio is higher knowledge group. Abbreviations: AN; anorexia nervosa, ED; eating disorder, GID; gastrointestinal disturbance, N/A; not applicable. Bolded statements represent questions asked in the survey.
Table
Table 3. Practices of dietitians with higher (n = 31) and lower (n = 39) knowledge of gastrointestinal disturbances in anorexia nervosa.
Table 3. Practices of dietitians with higher (n = 31) and lower (n = 39) knowledge of gastrointestinal disturbances in anorexia nervosa.
Practice ItemHigher Knowledge
n (%)		Lower Knowledge
n (%)		p-Value^ OR 95% CI or
+ Cohen’s D (95% CI)
What tool do you use to screen patients for functional GI disorders?
ROME11 (35)9 (23)0.1271.1 (0.41, 2.97) ^#
Manning1 (3)3 (7)0.1220.15 (0.018, 1.31) ^ #
Kruis1 (3)0 (0)0.1040.29 (0.031, 2.75) ^ #
Strategies I use to address GI disturbances include:
Refer to gastroenterologist21 (68)27 (69)0.890.933 (0.34, 2.57) ^#
Medication advice11 (35)9 (23)0.251.83 (0.64, 5.22) ^#
Suggest peppermint oil6 (19)8 (21)0.900.93 (0.29, 3.03) ^#
Low FODMAP diet8 (26)10 (26)0.991.00 (0.34, 2.97) ^#
Exclusion of food groups4 (13)5 (13)0.991.00 (0.25, 4.12) ^#
Suggest fibre supplement17 (55)15 (38)0.171.94 (0.75, 5.06) ^#
Suggest probiotics12 (39)16 (41)0.840.91 (0.335, 2.38) ^#
Over the counter nutrition supplements3 (9)4 (10)0.940.94 (0.19, 4.54) ^#
Suggest anti-diarrhoeal agents7 (22)1 (3)0.009 *11.08 (1.28, 95.79) ^#
Advice on meal timing24 (77)31 (79)0.830.88 (0.28, 2.78) ^#
Pre- or post-meal activities22 (71)21 (54)0.142.10 (0.77, 5.69) ^#
Gut-focused hypnotherapy16 (52)7 (18)0.003 *4.88 (1.66, 14.35) ^#
Refer to psychologist or counsellor19 (61)17 (44)0.142.05 (0.78, 5.35) ^#
Breathing techniques15 (48)13 (33)0.201.88 (0.71, 4.94) ^#
Mindful eating techniques20 (65)18 (46)0.132.12 (0.81, 5.59) ^#
Provide information about GID and ED28 (90)28 (72)0.0543.66 (0.92, 14.57) ^#
I don’t use any specific strategies02 (5)0.20
What type of gastrointestinal education do you provide to your patients?
Psychoeducation23 (74)20 (51)0.0732.63 (0.90, 7.67) ^#
Reassurance28 (90)26 (66)0.027 *5.38 (1.08, 26.92) ^#
Suggest consultation with pediatrician6 (19)7 (18)0.961.04 (0.31, 3.50) ^#
Suggest consultation with psychologist17 (55)9 (23)0.009 *3.92 (1.38, 11.15) ^#
Suggest consultation with GP24 (77)24 (62)0.231.45 (0.70, 3.01) ^#
Suggest consultation with gastroenterologist22 (71)22 (56)0.291.75 (0.61, 5.00) ^#
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)
I am confident in my ability to treat co-occurring GID and anorexia nervosa3.84 (0.90)3.51 (0.85)0.13−0.37 (−0.85, 0.10) +
I expect GID to improve with weight restoration2.71 (1.37)2.13 (0.98)0.04 *−0.50 (−0.98, −0.017) +
Education about the relationship between GID and ED should be provided by the dietitian4.84 (0.45)4.28 (0.83)0.0013 *−0.810 (−1.30, −0.32) +
I routinely screen patients for functional GI disorders or disturbances4.19 (1.08)3.15 (1.27)0.0005 *−0.88 (−1.37, −0.38) +
I provide education to patients about gastrointestinal function and gut health:3.94 (1.06)3.21 (1.22)0.010 *−0.63 (−1.12, −0.15) +
In general, I feel confident approaching a patient with co-occurring anorexia nervosa and gastrointestinal disturbances4.19 (0.75)3.62 (0.91)0.0057 *−0.69 (−1.17, −0.20) ^
* Significant differences; ^ OR 95% CI; + Cohen’s D (95% CI). # Reference group for odds ratio is higher knowledge group. Abbreviations: AN; anorexia nervosa, ED; eating disorder, GID; gastrointestinal disturbance. Bolded statements represent questions asked in the survey.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

West, M.L.; McMaster, C.; Young, C.L.; Mohebbi, M.; Hart, S.; Staudacher, H.M.; Loughman, A.; Ruusunen, A.; Rocks, T. Diet, Digestion, and the Dietitian: A Survey of Clinicians’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices to Advance the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disturbances in Individuals with Anorexia Nervosa. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 5833. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195833

AMA Style

West ML, McMaster C, Young CL, Mohebbi M, Hart S, Staudacher HM, Loughman A, Ruusunen A, Rocks T. Diet, Digestion, and the Dietitian: A Survey of Clinicians’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices to Advance the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disturbances in Individuals with Anorexia Nervosa. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2022; 11(19):5833. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195833

Chicago/Turabian Style

West, Madeline L., Caitlin McMaster, Claire L. Young, Mohammadreza Mohebbi, Susan Hart, Heidi M. Staudacher, Amy Loughman, Anu Ruusunen, and Tetyana Rocks. 2022. "Diet, Digestion, and the Dietitian: A Survey of Clinicians’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices to Advance the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disturbances in Individuals with Anorexia Nervosa" Journal of Clinical Medicine 11, no. 19: 5833. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195833

APA Style

West, M. L., McMaster, C., Young, C. L., Mohebbi, M., Hart, S., Staudacher, H. M., Loughman, A., Ruusunen, A., & Rocks, T. (2022). Diet, Digestion, and the Dietitian: A Survey of Clinicians’ Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices to Advance the Treatment of Gastrointestinal Disturbances in Individuals with Anorexia Nervosa. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(19), 5833. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195833

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop