Multidisciplinary treatment of eating disorders--Part 2: Primary goals and content of treatment.

DeRoma et al. (2004) mapped out a full inpatient eating-disorders program. The team included doctors, nurses, dietitians, psychologists, and family therapists. The paper lists each discipline's goals and daily tasks, but it gives no patient data.

The authors described a working program, not results. They showed how staff share meal coaching, medical care, CBT groups, and family sessions. No outcomes were tracked or reported.

Vanderlinden et al. (2012) later tested one piece of the target package. Their weekly CBT for adults with binge-eating disorder cut binges and BMI over 3.5 years. The target paper only sketched CBT; Johan showed it can work when measured.

Alfonsson et al. (2015) tried a simpler team add-on: group behavioral activation. Mood improved, but binge episodes did not drop versus wait-list. This warns that mood work alone is not enough; you still need eating-specific modules.

Delgado-Lobete et al. (2020) used the same inpatient team model for pediatric feeding disorders. They tracked meals and saw gains in 10 of 11 behaviors. Their data show the interdisciplinary format can succeed when you collect numbers, something the target study never did.

Pigott (1987) offered an earlier pick-and-mix guide: use strict behavioral tactics for weight gain, CBT for thoughts, and broader therapy for life issues. DeRoma et al. (2004) rolled those choices into one coordinated program, updating the 1987 menu into a daily schedule.

If you run or consult on an eating-disorders unit, this paper is a ready checklist of roles and daily tasks. Pair it with Johan's CBT data and Laura's measurement tips. You can build a team-based plan, add brief mood modules, and track binge frequency, weight, and mood each week. Start small: pick one CBT group protocol and one shared data sheet so every discipline records the same targets.