Background: First Episode Rapid Early Intervention for Eating Disorders (FREED) is a service model and care pathway for emerging adults aged 16 to 25‐years with a recent onset eating disorder (ED) of <3 years. A previous single‐site study suggests that FREED significantly improves clinical outcomes compared to treatment‐as‐usual (TAU). The present study (FREED‐Up) assessed the scalability of FREED. A multi‐centre quasi‐experimental pre‐post design was used, comparing patient outcomes before and after implementation of FREED in participating services.Methods: FREED patients (n = 278) were consecutive, prospectively ascertained referrals to four specialist ED services in England, assessed at four time points over 12 months on ED symptoms, mood, service utilization and cost. FREED patients were compared to a TAU cohort (n = 224) of similar patients, identified retrospectively from electronic patient records in participating services. All were emerging adults aged 16–25 experiencing a first episode ED of <3 years duration.Results: Overall, FREED patients made significant and rapid clinical improvements over time. 53.2% of FREED patients with anorexia nervosa reached a healthy weight at the 12‐month timepoint, compared to only 17.9% of TAU patients (X² [1, N = 107] = 10.46, p < .001). Significantly fewer FREED patients required intensive (i.e., in‐patient or day‐patient) treatment (6.6%) compared to TAU patients (12.4%) across the follow‐up period (X² [1, N = 40] = 4.36, p = .037). This contributed to a trend in cost savings in FREED compared to TAU (−£4472, p = .06, CI −£9168, £233).Discussion: FREED is robust and scalable and is associated with substantial improvements in clinical outcomes, reduction in inpatient or day‐patient admissions, and cost‐savings.

Objective: This paper outlines the evidence base for early intervention for eating disorders; provides a global overview of how early intervention for eating disorders is provided in different regions and settings; and proposes policy, service, clinician and research recommendations to progress early intervention for eating disorders.Method and Results: Currently, access to eating disorder treatment often takes many years or does not occur at all. This is despite neurobiological, clinical and socioeconomic evidence showing that early intervention may improve outcomes and facilitate full sustained recovery from an eating disorder. There is also considerable variation worldwide in how eating disorder care is provided, with marked inequalities in treatment provision. Despite these barriers, there are existing evidence‐based approaches to early intervention for eating disorders and progress is being made in scaling these.Conclusions: We propose action steps for the field that will transform eating disorder service provision and facilitate early detection, treatment and recovery for everyone affected by eating disorders, regardless of age, socioeconomic status and personal characteristics.

Aims: Eating disorders are serious psychiatric disorders with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Early intervention can improve treatment outcomes and reduce disruption to psychosocial development. However, early intervention is not well established in the eating disorder field. First episode rapid early intervention for eating disorders (FREED) was developed to address barriers to early, effective eating disorder treatment in emerging adults aged 16 to 25 years. Since 2014, FREED has progressed from a single‐site research project to an evidence‐based care approach in nine eating disorder services. This paper aims to summarize key learning from the scaling of FREED to date, with attention to how this learning may generalizes to other models of care.Methods: We describe the development, scaling and implementation of FREED with reference to the RE‐AIM (reach; effectiveness/efficacy; adoption; implementation; maintenance) framework. We also summarize challenges and learning in each of the RE‐AIM domains.Results: FREED has demonstrated real‐world validity across diverse clinical contexts, geographical regions and populations. Key outcomes are seen for each of the RE‐AIM domains.Conclusions: FREED provides an example of effective, non‐commercial scaling of an early intervention eating disorder care pathway. This work is likely to be particularly relevant to others looking to scale‐up early intervention models and for those working in secondary and tertiary mental health settings.

Objective: Fraudulent participation is an escalating concern for online clinical trials and research studies and can have a significant negative impact on findings. We aim to shed light on the risk and to provide practical recommendations for detecting and managing such instances.Methods: The FREED‐Mobile (FREED‐M) study is an online, randomized controlled feasibility trial to assess a digital early intervention for young people (aged 16–25) in England or Wales with eating problems. The trial involved baseline (week 0), post‐intervention (week 4), and follow‐up (week 12) surveys, alongside weekly modules provided over 4 weeks on the study website. Study completers were compensated with £20 shopping vouchers. Despite the complexity of the trial design, two instances of fraudulent sign‐ups occurred in January and March 2023. To counter this, we developed a “fraudulent participants protocol” following internal investigations and discussions with collaborators.Results: The implementation of prevention measures such as reCAPTCHA updates, IP address review, and changes in reimbursement effectively halted further fraudulent sign‐ups. Our protocol facilitated the systematic identification and withdrawal of suspected or clear fraudsters and was demonstrably robust at distinguishing between fraudsters and genuine responders.Discussion: All remote, online trials or studies are at risk of fraudulent participation. Drawing from our experience and existing literature, we offer practical recommendations for researchers considering online recruitment and data collection. Vigilance and the integration of deterrents, and data quality checks into the study design from the outset are advised to safeguard research integrity.Public Significance: Fraudulent participation in digital research can have asignificant impact on research findings, potentially leading to biased resultsand misinformed decisions. We developed an effective protocol for theprevention, identification, and management of fraudulent participants. Bysharing our insights and recommendations, we hope to raise awareness of thisissue and provide other researchers with the knowledge and strategies necessaryto safeguard research integrity moving forward.

Aim: First Episode Rapid Early Intervention for Eating Disorders (FREED) is an early intervention model for young people with recent‐onset eating disorders (ED). Promising results from a previous single‐centre study and a four‐centre study (FREED‐Up) have led to the rapid national scaling of FREED to ED services in England (FREED‐4‐All). Our aim was to evaluate duration of an untreated ED (DUED), wait time target adherence, and clinical outcomes in FREED‐4‐All and compare these to the (benchmark) findings of the earlier FREED‐Up study.Method: FREED services submit de‐identified data to the central FREED team quarterly. The current study covers the period between September 2018 and September 2021. This FREED‐4‐All dataset includes 2473 patients. These were compared to 278 patients from the FREED‐Up study.Results: DUED was substantially shorter in the FREED‐4‐All dataset relative to the FREED‐Up study (15 vs. 18 months). Adherence to the wait time targets was comparable in both cohorts (~85% of engagement calls attempted in <2 days, ~50%–60% of assessments offered in <14 days, ~40% of treatment offered in <28 days). Patients in the FREED‐4‐All dataset experienced significant improvements in ED and general psychological symptoms from pre‐ to post‐treatment that were comparable to the FREED‐Up study. These findings should be interpreted cautiously as only 6% of FREED‐4‐All patients had post‐treatment data.Conclusions: Data from the FREED‐4‐All evaluation suggest that FREED is replicating at scale. However, these data are flawed, uncertain, proximate, and sparse and should therefore be used carefully alongside other evidence and clinical experience to inform decision making.