Parents as Agents of Change: A Group Behavioral Intervention for Parents of Children with Avoidant-Restrictive Food Intake Disorder

parent

Parents and therapists alike may tell you picky eating seems to have grown tremendously in recent years. While there is some amount of typical toddler fussiness, sometimes picky eating is indicative of something more.

As with anything, likely there are a wide variety of factors to include in the possible explanations. Challenges with sensory processing often contribute to difficulty with feeding. Processed food has become almost a staple in families’ homes. With this we have seen a decrease in families and children planting, growing, interacting with and preparing food in its fresh and natural form. Eating dinner together as a family is a hugely important activity. Here children observe and learn what to think about food and how to eat it from those with whom they share the dinner table. While some families returned to the dinner table due to lockdowns during COVID-19, it’s a habit that is not as often prioritized into overly packed after school and work schedules.

Picking Eating, Parents and Family Dynamics

Whatever the cause of picky eating, it can greatly impact family stress levels and dynamics. I always say I have a love/hate relationship with feeding therapy. I really think it’s fun, and I love when kids make progress and grow confident to try new foods! However, moving that progress to the family dinner table can be another story. Picky eating requires treatment of the whole family. Parents in particular need to play an active role in learning how to teach their picky eaters about new foods.

That’s why I loved the article I reviewed this week. It specifically focused on educating parents and empowering them so they can be the crucial agents of change their children need them to be! This article actually covers treatment of children who had a diagnosis of Avoidant-Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID). That is not your garden variety picky eater. The Washington Post published a story last week on the topic. In the article, the author of the study I’m reviewing today shared about her experience working with children with ARFID.

Journal Cognitive and Behavioral Practice (SNIP score 0.994)

Article Title The (Extremely) Picky Eaters Clinic: A Pilot Trial of a Seven-Session Group Behavioral Intervention for Parents of Children with Avoidant/Restrictive Food Intake Disorder

  • 1A Systematic review of homogeneous RCTs
  • 1B Well-designed individual RCT
  • 2A Systematic review of cohort studies
  • 2B Individual prospective cohort study, low quality RCT, ecological studies; and two-group, non-randomized studies
  • 3A Systematic review of case control studies
  • 3B Individual retrospective case-control studies; one-group, non-randomized pre-post test study; cohort studies
  • 4 Case series (and low-quality cohort and case control study)
  • 5 Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal

Methods

The authors trained cohorts of parents whose children presented with criteria for avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder (ARFID). Parents of 21 children, ages 4-11 years old, participated. Cohorts had two to four families each. Seven total cohorts participated, with each cohort participating in seven sessions of the manualized group treatment for parents only.

parent training

Interventionists trained the parents in acting as coaches in presenting non-preferred foods on a daily basis in their homes. They also empowered parents on how to reduce problematic mealtime behaviors with parent management training. The participants in this study were referred to a specific provider, the clinical director of an outpatient anxiety speciality clinic which serves to evaluate and treat extremely picky eating (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 9).

Children met inclusion criteria if they were 4-12 years old, had a diagnosis of ARFID and their parents’ main concern was their picky eating in the event of coexisting psychiatric or medical problems. All parents completed the following standardized feeding measures at pretreatment, posttreatment and a 3-month follow-up to assess their child’s picky eating and problematic mealtime behaviors (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 3).

  • Behavioral Pediatric Feeding Assessment Scale
  • Child Eating Behaviors Questionnaire

Parents completed the Child Behavior Checklist during intake only as a means of collecting information on behavioral, emotional and social problems (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 12).

Intervention

Parents participated in seven 90 minute sessions which occurred weekly for sessions 1-4. The last two sessions occurred with a 3-4 week gap to promote families practicing the skills they had learned (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 14). The seventh session was an optional follow up. Interventionists educated parents on ARFID, mealtime hygiene, appetite optimization and the key behavioral principles for the program in the first session (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 14).

Interventionists taught parents how to implement daily exposure procedures in the second session. Following sessions focused on improving parents’ ability to follow through with promoting appropriate responses to children’s behaviors as well as implementing contingency management for food exposures and meals. Parents also learned about increasing the size of challenge food portions and incorporating them into meals.

parent training for daily exposure procedure

Findings

Behavioral Pediatric Feeding Assessment Scale

Significant reductions were reported for all four subscales of this assessment along with a large within-group effect size at posttreatment (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 16). At the 3-month follow-up, gains were maintained and the large within-group effect size remained.

Child Eating Behaviors Questionnaire

Parents ratings on the CEBQ demonstrated a significant increase for Enjoyment of Food as well as significant decreases for Slowness in Eating, Satiety Responsiveness and Food Fussiness from pre to post treatement (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 16). The author noted large within-group effect sizes in these areas at posttreatment.

No significant improvements were observed for Emotional Undereating on this assessment. Enjoyment of Food resulted with a significant increase from pre-treatment to the 3-month follow up, and significant decreases for Satiety Responsiveness, Slowness in Eating, Emotional Undereating and Food Fussiness. The author reported moderate-large within-group effect sizes. All of these gains remained at the 3-month follow up.

Parent Satisfaction

Of the parents who completed treatment satisfaction questionnaires post-treatment (71% of the total study participants) 96% of those parents rated specific elements of the Picky Eaters Clinic as Very Helpful or Extremely Helpful (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 17). Parents reported the support they received from the group and trainings in food exposures as well as contingency management as the most helpful elements (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 17).

Things to Consider

The parents in this study were highly motivated as demonstrated by 95% attendance rate and 71% of children having two parents attending treatment sessions (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 15). This study’s author noted that this group was fairly heterogeneous, but that previous research indicates that this is consistent for children with a picky eating subtype diagnosis of ARFID (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 27).

Interestingly, there are three subtypes of ARFID. These include those children with extreme picky eating, but also children whose avoidance of eating stems from a specific fear/potential negative consequences they they associate with eating. This can include things like a phobia of choking, having allergic reactions or vomiting. A third group of children who fall into the ARFID category are those who demonstrate decreased interest in eating.

This information is relevant as the treatment one selects varies depending on the subtype the child presents with. It is important to be specific and intentional with our selections of evidence based treatments to promote progress for children and their families!

The author also mentions that the data that was used was obtained in clinical procedure as opposed to following a research protocol. She noted that this type of data is often less reliable and complete (Dahlsgaard & Bodie 2019, p. 27). Finally, as there was no control group for this study, we can not compare it to the effectiveness of other common treatments for selective eating.

The More You Know…

So now that you know that involving parents only resulted in significant changes in the relationship with food for children with Avoidant-Restrictive Food Intake Disorder (ARFID), how do you plan to educate and empower parents of the children you’re treating? I highly recommend this article on How to Get Picky Eaters to Try New Foods as a starting point!

References

Dahlsgaard, K. K. & Bodie, J. (2019). The (extremely) picky eaters clinic: A pilot trial of a seven-session group behavioral intervention for parents of children with avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder. Cognitive and Behavioral Practice, 26 (3), 492-505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbpra.2018.11.001

Self-Regulation: Cognitive and Occupation-Based Interventions

Self-regulation

Self-regulation is a crucial element of providing holistic sensory integration and sensory based therapy. But what exactly does it entail? I like the four components of self-regulation that Leah Kyupers, author of the Zones of Regulation, highlights:

Self-regulation
(Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017)

Part of the thought process behind implementing sensory integration and sensory-based therapy is that as a child’s sensory processing abilities improve, so too will their self-regulation. I think this definitely is a possibility, but we must be mindful that oftentimes the children we work with need to be directly taught regulation skills. As their sensory-processing improves, children may be more calm more of the time. This in turn may facilitate them learning self-regulation strategies for the next time they are becoming dysregulated. However, the need for direct modeling and practice of tools to regulate remains.

Journal American Journal of Occupational Therapy (SNIP score 1.121)

Article Title Effectiveness of Cognitive and Occupation-Based Interventions for Children with Challenges in Sensory Processing and Integration: A Systematic Review

  • 1A Systematic review of homogenous RCTs
  • 1B Well-designed individual RCT
  • 2A Systematic review of cohort studies
  • 2B Individual prospective cohort study, low quality RCT, ecological studies; and two-group, non-randomized studies
  • 3A Systematic Review of case control studies
  • 3B Individual retrospective case-control studies; one-group, non-randomized pre-post test study; cohort studies
  • 4 Case series (and low quality cohort and case control study)
  • 5 Expert opinion without explicit critical appraisal
  • * This was a systematic review which included a wide array of evidence from RCT to Level IV single-case experimental design. As this type of systematic review doesn’t fall into either 2A nor 3A, I chose to categorize it into a level 2B study. The evidence reviewed was higher than case studies but lower than cohort studies.

Methods

The authors of this systematic review included peer reviewed studies that concentrated on interventions in the scope of OT for children and adolescents who had sensory processing and integration challenges. Authors of this review ensured this in that studies they included demonstrated the use of an assessment that specifically confirmed the participants had sensory processing or sensory integration challenges. The authors selected studies that also included outcome measures that specifically evaluated sensory processing and integration (Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 3). 

The authors of this review specifically reviewed interventions defined as either cognitive or occupation-based. I appreciate that the authors were specific by excluding studies that did not explicitly indicate subjects as having sensory processing or integration disorders (Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 4) While it is sometimes frustrating to have less articles, it is better to have consistent and accurate definitions so that we can feel confident of what is being reported!

Findings

Two studies included evaluated cognitive interventions that targeted outcome measures of self-regulation and executive functions of inhibitory control, social cognition, behavioral and emotional regulation and externalizing behavior problems (Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 5).

Alert Program for Self-Regulation

A level I study assessed the effectiveness of 12 individual 1 hour sessions of the Alert Program for Self-Regulation for children with Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Authors grouped children into an immediate and delayed treatment group. The delayed treatment group served as the control. Both groups received treatment, with the group receiving treatment first demonstrating significant increases in their inhibitory control and social cognition. These gains were maintained at a 6 month follow-up. Also noteworthy is that parents of children in this group indicated their children’s behavior and emotional regulation improved. These parents also noted a reduction in externalizing behavior problems in their children (Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 5).

Components of the Alert Program

Self-regulation
(Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 5)

Social Stories

A level IV study included an intervention of Social Stories for 9 weeks in a self-contained pre-school classroom. This intervention with 3 male pre-schoolers entailed reading and then talking about a Social Story concentrated on the children’s goals (Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 5). Children also practiced their strategies as part of the intervention. The interventionists used Social Stories that met Carol Gray’s criteria for social stories. 

Self-regulation

All three children in this study showed increased frequency of their desired behaviors. The baseline, intervention and maintenance phase percentages of frequency of desired behaviors are shown.

Occupation-Based Interventions

Horseback Riding to Promote Self-Regulation Skills

A level I RCT investigated the effectiveness of horseback riding on children’s social functioning. Subjects were children 4-10 years old with ASD. These children participated in 1 hour per week of horseback riding lessons for 12 weeks. This was done at an equestrian center with trained instructors. Children who participated in the horseback riding intervention demonstrated statistically significant changes in their overall Sensory Profile Score, as completed by their parents (Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 6). Specifically, the following subscales were impacted: Sensory Seeking, Sensory Sensitivity, Inattention/Distractibility and Sedentary Behaviors. These children also demonstrated significant changes in social motivation. 

A level III study used lessons that a school group coordinator designed about: sensory orientation to the environment, mounting a horse and riding (Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 6).  Subjects were children in kindergarten through fifth grade with ASD. Children who participated in horseback riding demonstrating significant improvements in their social interaction, sensory processing as well as reduced severity of symptoms associated with ASD. It is noteworthy that in this study, subjects had built in breaks and during breaks, the gains were not consistently maintained (Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 6).

Yoga as a Means to Promote Self-Regulation

A level III study assessed the use of yoga for subjects 12-18 years old who were in partial hospitalization or an inpatient mental health unit (Pfeiffer, Clark, & Arbesman, 2017, p. 6). These subjects took part in at least two 50 minute yoga sessions over 5 months.  A Yoga Alliance-registered teacher taught the classes. Participants in the yoga intervention demonstrated significant improvements in their pulse rate and self-reported distress ratings.

What’s the Best Way to Promote Self-Regulation?

As OT’s we know that there are many factors that contribute to our clients meeting goals and living fulfilling and enjoyable lives. I liked that this study highlighted both the need for cognitive strategies and occupations. Teaching children to become more aware of their body’s state of regulation helps empower them to self-regulate . I am excited to see that children can participate in occupations that are enjoyable that can also help develop self-regulation skills! What are your favorite programs and tools to teach children self-regulation?

References

Pfeiffer, B., Frolek Clark, G., & Arbesman, M. (2017). Effectiveness of cognitive and occupation-based interventions for children with challenges in sensory processing and integration: A systematic review. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 72, 7201190020. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.2018.028233.