Search

ObjectiveEvaluate whether stimulant medication improves acquisition of academic material in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) receiving small-group, content-area instruction in a classroom setting.MethodParticipants were 173 children between the ages of 7 and 12 years old (77% male, 86% Hispanic) who met Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for ADHD and were participating in a therapeutic summer camp. The design was a triple-masked, within-subject, AB/BA crossover trial. Children completed two consecutive phases of daily, 25-min instruction in both (a) subject-area content (science, social studies) and (b) vocabulary. Each phase was a standard instructional unit lasting for 3 weeks. Teachers and aides taught the material to small groups in a summer classroom setting. Each child was randomized to be medicated with daily osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) during either the first or second of the instructional phases, receiving placebo during the other.ResultsMedication had large, salutary, statistically significant effects on children's academic seatwork productivity and classroom behavior on every single day of the instructional period. However, there was no detectable effect of medication on learning the material taught during instruction: Children learned the same amount of subject-area and vocabulary content whether they were taking OROS-MPH or placebo during the instructional period.ConclusionsAcute effects of OROS-MPH on daily academic seatwork productivity and classroom behavior did not translate into improved learning of new academic material taught via small-group, evidence-based instruction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

ObjectiveTo examine the impact of central nervous system (CNS) stimulants on the growth of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and to assess the efficacy and feasibility of weight recovery interventions on growth.MethodA total of 230 children aged 5 to 12 years with ADHD with no history of chronic CNS stimulant use were randomly assigned to receive daily CNS stimulants (78%, primarily osmotic release oral system-methylphenidate [OROS-MPH]) or behavioral treatment (22%) for 30 months. After 6 months, children evidencing a decline in body mass index (BMI) of >0.5 z-units were randomized to 1 of 3 weight recovery treatments (WRTs): monthly monitoring of height/weight (MON) plus continued daily medication; drug holidays (DH) with medication limited to school days; or daily caloric supplementation (CS) with a 150-kcal supplement plus daily medication.ResultsBefore WRT assignment, medication was associated with significant reductions in standardized weight and height (p values

Objectives: Use of Synthetic and designer products, including synthetic marijuana (SM), among adolescents poses a major risk to public health. Little is known about the motivating factors of synthetic substance use in adolescents. This study examined the motivations, predictors, perceived risks and benefits, and differences with SM versus natural marijuana among adolescents. Methods: Between April 2016 and May 2018, a convenience sample of adolescents receiving substance use treatment from a local counseling center completed an anonymous survey to assess the use of natural and synthetic marijuana use, the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire to assess levels of current psychiatric symptoms and the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive Scale to assess symptoms of psychosis. Results: A total of 80 adolescents (age range of 14-18 years; 71% male; 53% Caucasian) completed the study. Of these, 39 (49%) reported natural marijuana use (natural marijuana users) and 41 (51%) reported both synthetic and natural marijuana use (dual users). The most commonly reported reasons for using SM were its low cost and reduced risk of detection. Participants who were familiar with SM and reported a desire to avoid detection on drug tests were likelier to use SM (all P <.05). Dual users reported more benefits and risks associated with SM use when compared to natural marijuana users (P ⩽.05). The use of SM also heightened the perceived medical risks of natural marijuana, including seizures and respiratory issues (P <.05), compared with natural marijuana users. While dual users self-reported more conduct (P =.009) and externalizing problems (P =.024) when compared to natural marijuana users, there were no group differences in psychotic symptoms, nor correlations with the frequency of synthetic or natural marijuana use and psychotic symptoms except that persecutory ideation correlated with the frequency of natural marijuana use during the past 12 months (rp = 0.28, P =.04). Conclusions: These results suggest that reports of cost savings, and lack of detection on urine drug screens are common reasons for SM use in adolescents despite being aware of the risks of using SM. Perceived benefits of using synthetics and other novel substances appear diverse, and merit further exploration as a better understanding of what motivates adolescents to use specific novel substances may guide prevention and treatment efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this study was to identify patterns of ADHD care, including factors that guide selection and sequencing of treatments in a large nationwide sample of preschool-aged youth over the past 6 years. Method: A retrospective cohort study utilizing a large electronic health record (TriNetX) of nearly 24,000 children ages 3 to 6 diagnosed with ADHD. Results: One in three preschoolers with ADHD were prescribed psychotropic medication, most commonly methylphenidate and guanfacine. One in 10 had at least one psychotherapy billing code during the entire assessment with most youth starting medication before psychotherapy. Rates of most treatments, including polypharmacy, increased with comorbid psychiatric disorders or sleep problems and over the course of the coronavirus pandemic. Conclusion: Rates of treatment have increased over time but are still largely inconsistent with published care guidelines that advise therapy before medication. Clinicians appear to prioritize psychiatric comorbidity and sleep problems when selecting treatments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]