Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID) is a relatively new diagnostic category. We sought to determine whether the Stanford Feeding Questionnaire (SFQ), an instrument for assessing picky eating, can differentiate children with ARFID from control children, and whether children with ARFID would show more nonfeeding/eating emotional problems than controls. Fifty children with ARFID were compared to 98 controls. Parents completed the SFQ, Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED), Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and Sensory Responsiveness Questionnaire (SRQ). On the SFQ, 12 items represented child ARFID behaviors (SFQ-ARFID Scale), and another 15 items represented parental feeding problems (SFQ-PFP Scale). We found that the SFQ-ARFID and SFQ-PFP Scale scores were significantly higher in children with ARFID vs. controls. Children with ARFID demonstrated higher SDQ-Total-Difficulties, higher SDQ-Internalizing-Difficulties and lower SRQ-Hedonic scores compared with controls. Of all parameters, the SFQ-ARFID Scale best differentiated children with ARFID from control children (area under receiver operating characteristics curve = 0.939, 95% CI, 0.895–0.983, p < 0.001). These findings suggest that parental reports show more eating problems and emotional disturbances in children with ARFID vs. controls, and more parental feeding problems. Further research is required to determine whether the SFQ-ARFID Scale may serve as an effective screening tool for the identification of ARFID.

Background: In recent years, there has been a shift in the clinical presentation and, hence, diagnostic definitions of eating disorders (EDs), reflected in a dramatic change in the diagnostic criteria of EDs in the DSM-5. The Eating Attitudes Test-26 (EAT-26) is currently considered an accepted instrument for community studies of EDs, although it features an inconsistent factorial structure in different cultures. Therefore, it is essential to investigate whether the EAT-26 can still be considered an adequate instrument for identifying the risk of developing EDs in different cultures. The aim of the present study was to examine the construct validity and internal consistency of the EAT-26. Method: The study used exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) among different cultural populations in Israel. Results: Findings indicated different factors in different ethnic groups, most of which do not correspond with the original EAT-26 three-factor structure. Results: The analysis yielded two main factors among Israeli Jews, four main factors among Israeli Muslim Arabs, and three main factors among Israeli Christian Arabs. Conclusion: These findings shed light on cultural factors affecting perceptions of the EAT-26 items. This calls for a reconsideration of the generalization of the original three-factor structure of the questionnaire in different cultures.

Background: Eating disorders (EDs) are among the most difficult psychiatric disorders to treat in normal conditions. They are likely even more difficult to manage in at-risk conditions such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Currently there is limited evidence about the particular needs and recommended treatment of adolescents with EDs during the COVID-19 outbreak, in particular regarding the use of telemedicine and the involvement of the family in long distance-treatment. Aims: We sought to discuss the advantages and problems associated with the use of multi-professional long-distance telemedicine treatment in the management of adolescents with EDs and their families during the COVID-19 outbreak. Methods: We gathered data about the treatment of adolescents with EDs in our pediatric ED-treatment center in Israel during the COVID-19 outbreak in the first 10 months of 2020, and compared it to the respective period in the past five years (2015–2019). Second, we described the management of four young females with anorexia nervosa (AN), treated in the ambulatory, daycare and inpatient facilities of our center during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: Slightly less patients were treated in our center during the COVID-19 pandemic than in the respective period in the past five years. These patients received at that time considerably more treatment sessions from all treatment providers (psychiatrists, clinical nutritionists and psychotherapists). This was related, in part, to the extensive use of telemedicine during that period (more than as third of all sessions were carried out with telemedicine in comparison to no use of long-distance treatment in the previous years). The condition of the four adolescents with AN was compromised at the start of the COVID-19 quarantine. The use of multi-disciplinary long-distance telemedicine treatment resulted in an improvement in the condition in three of the four adolescents, living in well-organized families, with the motivation and ability to adjust to the new conditions, but not in one adolescent whose family experienced more problems. These families might require the use of face-to-face interventions even during pandemic conditions. Conclusion: The choice of the mode of treatment for adolescents with EDs during pandemic times (telemedicine vs. face-to-face) should consider the functioning of the family.