Digital tools could make eating-disorder support easier to reach—but the professionals in this study did not see an app replacing therapy. They saw something more careful: digital help working alongside a human relationship. Digital mental health interventions are becoming increasingly important for mental health care, but in eating disorders they are still at an early stage.

So far, few studies have examined how mental health professionals view bringing these interventions into routine care for eating disorders. The evidence base is still limited: eating-disorder digital interventions remain early-stage, and few studies have examined professionals’ views on integrating them into routine care.

The study set out to understand professionals’ experiences, views, and expectations about digital mental health interventions for eating disorders. It also aimed to identify what would be needed to bring digital support into routine care.

The study asked how much professionals already use digital interventions in treatment, what advantages they see, and what risks they perceive. It also focused on the specific requirements for bringing digital applications into routine care.

Here is the everyday picture: digital support could work like a low step at the entrance to care, rather than a full treatment building. It may offer a first contact to people in remote areas or people not yet receiving medical treatment. For people who feel shame or fear stigma, digital support might be a first step toward support or eating-disorder care.

Digital teaching about the condition was also seen as useful. But a low doorway is not the same as a safe treatment plan. Professionals were aware of risks and limits for patients and for healthcare provision. Their concerns included data security, support that is not personal enough, and digital help that may not be adequate or sufficient.

In some cases, they even saw a danger that the disorder itself could worsen. That caution was linked to missing information. Many professionals wanted more scientific evidence about how digital treatments work, when they should be used, and when they should not be used.

Nearly all felt they had not been trained and informed adequately about standards and about suitable digital interventions that were available. The overall view was positive, but few professionals had already used digital interventions in daily practice.

Legal issues, data-protection rules, and the quality of technical equipment were major barriers. Professionals saw the greatest potential when digital support added to outpatient treatment or helped with aftercare, not when people used it alone without conventional psychotherapy.

They also said helpful functions should be tailored to different eating disorders, especially in care that combines digital tools with professional treatment. The central message is balance: digital support may open a door, teach useful skills, and help after treatment, but it needs human care, stronger evidence, and safeguards for people at greater risk.