Search

Background: The need for accessible and motivating treatment approaches within mental health has led to the development of an Internet-based serious game intervention (called “Plan-It Commander”) as an adjunct to treatment as usual for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Objective: The aim was to determine the effects of Plan-It Commander on daily life skills of children with ADHD in a multisite randomized controlled crossover open-label trial. Methods: Participants (N=170) in this 20-week trial had a diagnosis of ADHD and ranged in age from 8 to 12 years (male: 80.6%, 137/170; female: 19.4%, 33/170). They were randomized to a serious game intervention group (group 1; n=88) or a treatment-as-usual crossover group (group 2; n=82). Participants randomized to group 1 received a serious game intervention in addition to treatment as usual for the first 10 weeks and then received treatment as usual for the next 10 weeks. Participants randomized to group 2 received treatment as usual for the first 10 weeks and crossed over to the serious game intervention in addition to treatment as usual for the subsequent 10 weeks. Primary (parent report) and secondary (parent, teacher, and child self-report) outcome measures were administered at baseline, 10 weeks, and 10-week follow-up. Results: After 10 weeks, participants in group 1 compared to group 2 achieved significantly greater improvements on the primary outcome of time management skills (parent-reported; P=.004) and on secondary outcomes of the social skill of responsibility (parent-reported; P=.04), and working memory (parent-reported; P=.02). Parents and teachers reported that total social skills improved over time within groups, whereas effects on total social skills and teacher-reported planning/organizing skills were nonsignificant between groups. Within group 1, positive effects were maintained or further improved in the last 10 weeks of the study. Participants in group 2, who playe

The Eunethydis ADHD Guidelines group set out here the ethical principles governing the relationship between the group and industry. The principles set out here are provided to ensure that this is both done and seen to be done. The impetus for these guidelines comes from within the Group and is linked to the recognition for the need for an open and transparent basis for Group-industry relations, especially in the light of the present concern that the pharmaceutical industry may be exerting a growing influence on the actions of researchers and clinicians in the ADHD field.

The validity of the DSM-IV subtypes is a recurring diagnostic debate in attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Laboratory measures, such as the test of everyday attention for children (TEA-Ch) can help us address this question. TEA-Ch is a test battery covering different aspects of everyday attention relating to selective and sustained attention and attentional control. The aim of the current study was to investigate whether this instrument can differentiate between combined (ADHD-C) and inattentive subtype (ADHD-I) of ADHD. Subjects were recruited from a multidisciplinary ADHD outpatient unit and tested free of medication. Sixty-four children with a diagnosis of ADHD were included (38 with ADHD-C; 26 with ADHD-I). The control group was 76 children recruited from primary and secondary schools. Children with ADHD performed worse than controls on 6 out of 9 TEA-Ch subtests. However a regression analysis revealed that TEA-Ch subtests made only a marginal contribution to the correct classification of ADHD, once the effects of IQ and age are controlled. Confirmatory factor analysis in our ADHD group demonstrated that the three factor structure achieved a poor fit. More detailed analysis suggested that inferior performance on the tasks designed to test vigilance was not the result of deficient-sustained attention. ADHD-C and ADHD-I showed very few differences across tasks. In conclusion, our results provided not much support for the value of the ADHD-C and ADHD-I distinction in predicting difficulties in everyday attention.

Quality of life (QoL) describes an individual's subjective perception of their position in life as evidenced by their physical, psychological, and social functioning. QoL has become an increasingly important measure of outcome in child mental health clinical work and research. Here we provide a systematic review of QoL studies in children and young people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and address three main questions. (1) What is the impact of ADHD on QoL? (2) What are the relationships between ADHD symptoms, functional impairment and the mediators and moderators of QoL in ADHD? (3) Does the treatment of ADHD impact on QoL? Databases were systematically searched to identify research studies describing QoL in ADHD. Thirty six relevant articles were identified. Robust negative effects on QoL are reported by the parents of children with ADHD across a broad range of psycho-social, achievement and self evaluation domains. Children with ADHD rate their own QoL less negatively than their parents and do not always seeing themselves as functioning less well than healthy controls. ADHD has a comparable overall impact on QoL compared to other mental health conditions and severe physical disorders. Increased symptom level and impairment predicts poorer QoL. The presence of comorbid conditions or psychosocial stressors helps explain these effects. There is emerging evidence that QoL improves with effective treatment. In conclusion, ADHD seriously compromises QoL especially when seen from a parents' perspective. QoL outcomes should be included as a matter of course in future treatment studies.

Background: Behavioural interventions are recommended for use with children and young people with ADHD, however specific guidance for their implementation based on the best available evidence is currently lacking. Methods: This review used an explicit question and answer format to address issues of clinical concern, based on expert interpretation of the evidence with precedence given to meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Results: On the basis of current evidence that takes into account whether outcomes are blinded, behavioural intervention cannot be supported as a front-line treatment for core ADHD symptoms. There is however, evidence from measures that are probably blinded that these interventions benefit parenting practices and improve conduct problems which commonly co-occur with ADHD, and are often the main reason for referral. Initial positive results have also been found in relation to parental knowledge, children’s emotional, social and academic functioning – although most studies have not used blinded outcomes. Generic as well as specialised ADHD parent training approaches - delivered either individually or in groups – have reported beneficial effects. High quality training, supervision of therapists and practice with the child, may improve outcomes but further evidence is required. Evidence for who benefits the most from behavioural interventions is scant. There is no evidence to limit behavioural treatments to parents with parenting difficulties or children with conduct problems. There are positive effects of additive school based intervention for the inattentive subtype. Targeting parental depression may enhance the effects of behavioural interventions. Conclusion: Parent training is an important part of the multi-modal treatment of children with ADHD which improves parenting, reduces levels of oppositional and non-compliant behaviours and may improve other aspects of functioning. However, blinded evidence does not support it as a specific tre

Background: Behavioural interventions are recommended for use with children and young people with ADHD, however specific guidance for their implementation based on the best available evidence is currently lacking. Methods: This review used an explicit question and answer format to address issues of clinical concern, based on expert interpretation of the evidence with precedence given to meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Results: On the basis of current evidence that takes into account whether outcomes are blinded, behavioural intervention cannot be supported as a front-line treatment for core ADHD symptoms. There is however, evidence from measures that are probably blinded that these interventions benefit parenting practices and improve conduct problems which commonly co-occur with ADHD, and are often the main reason for referral. Initial positive results have also been found in relation to parental knowledge, children’s emotional, social and academic functioning – although most studies have not used blinded outcomes. Generic as well as specialised ADHD parent training approaches - delivered either individually or in groups – have reported beneficial effects. High quality training, supervision of therapists and practice with the child, may improve outcomes but further evidence is required. Evidence for who benefits the most from behavioural interventions is scant. There is no evidence to limit behavioural treatments to parents with parenting difficulties or children with conduct problems. There are positive effects of additive school based intervention for the inattentive subtype. Targeting parental depression may enhance the effects of behavioural interventions. Conclusion: Parent training is an important part of the multi-modal treatment of children with ADHD which improves parenting, reduces levels of oppositional and non-compliant behaviours and may improve other aspects of functioning. However, blinded evidence does not support it as a specific tre

ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder presenting to child and adolescent mental health, paediatric, and primary care services. Timely and effective interventions to address core ADHD symptoms and co-occurring problems are a high priority for healthcare and society more widely. While much research has reported on the benefits and adverse effects of different interventions for ADHD, these individual research reports and the reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines summarizing their findings are sometimes inconsistent and difficult to interpret. We have summarized the current evidence and identified several methodological issues and gaps in the current evidence that we believe are important for clinicians to consider when evaluating the evidence and making treatment decisions. These include understanding potential impact of bias such as inadequate blinding and selection bias on study outcomes; the relative lack of high-quality data comparing different treatments and assessing long-term effectiveness, adverse effects and safety for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; and the problems associated with observational studies, including those based on large national registries and comparing treatments with each other. We highlight key similarities across current international clinical guidelines and discuss the reasons for divergence where these occur. We discuss the integration of these different perspective into a framework for person/family-centered evidence-based practice approach to care that aims to achieve optimal outcomes that prioritize individual strengths and impairments, as well as the personal treatment targets of children and their families. Finally, we consider how access to care for this common and impairing disorder can be improved in different healthcare systems.

ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder presenting to child and adolescent mental health, paediatric, and primary care services. Timely and effective interventions to address core ADHD symptoms and co-occurring problems are a high priority for healthcare and society more widely. While much research has reported on the benefits and adverse effects of different interventions for ADHD, these individual research reports and the reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines summarizing their findings are sometimes inconsistent and difficult to interpret. We have summarized the current evidence and identified several methodological issues and gaps in the current evidence that we believe are important for clinicians to consider when evaluating the evidence and making treatment decisions. These include understanding potential impact of bias such as inadequate blinding and selection bias on study outcomes; the relative lack of high-quality data comparing different treatments and assessing long-term effectiveness, adverse effects and safety for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; and the problems associated with observational studies, including those based on large national registries and comparing treatments with each other. We highlight key similarities across current international clinical guidelines and discuss the reasons for divergence where these occur. We discuss the integration of these different perspective into a framework for person/family-centered evidence-based practice approach to care that aims to achieve optimal outcomes that prioritize individual strengths and impairments, as well as the personal treatment targets of children and their families. Finally, we consider how access to care for this common and impairing disorder can be improved in different healthcare systems.

Background: Behavioural interventions are recommended for use with children and young people with ADHD, however specific guidance for their implementation based on the best available evidence is currently lacking. Methods: This review used an explicit question and answer format to address issues of clinical concern, based on expert interpretation of the evidence with precedence given to meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Results: On the basis of current evidence that takes into account whether outcomes are blinded, behavioural intervention cannot be supported as a front-line treatment for core ADHD symptoms. There is however, evidence from measures that are probably blinded that these interventions benefit parenting practices and improve conduct problems which commonly co-occur with ADHD, and are often the main reason for referral. Initial positive results have also been found in relation to parental knowledge, children’s emotional, social and academic functioning – although most studies have not used blinded outcomes. Generic as well as specialised ADHD parent training approaches - delivered either individually or in groups – have reported beneficial effects. High quality training, supervision of therapists and practice with the child, may improve outcomes but further evidence is required. Evidence for who benefits the most from behavioural interventions is scant. There is no evidence to limit behavioural treatments to parents with parenting difficulties or children with conduct problems. There are positive effects of additive school based intervention for the inattentive subtype. Targeting parental depression may enhance the effects of behavioural interventions. Conclusion: Parent training is an important part of the multi-modal treatment of children with ADHD which improves parenting, reduces levels of oppositional and non-compliant behaviours and may improve other aspects of functioning. However, blinded evidence does not support it as a specific tre

Background: Behavioural interventions are recommended for use with children and young people with ADHD, however specific guidance for their implementation based on the best available evidence is currently lacking. Methods: This review used an explicit question and answer format to address issues of clinical concern, based on expert interpretation of the evidence with precedence given to meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Results: On the basis of current evidence that takes into account whether outcomes are blinded, behavioural intervention cannot be supported as a front-line treatment for core ADHD symptoms. There is however, evidence from measures that are probably blinded that these interventions benefit parenting practices and improve conduct problems which commonly co-occur with ADHD, and are often the main reason for referral. Initial positive results have also been found in relation to parental knowledge, children’s emotional, social and academic functioning – although most studies have not used blinded outcomes. Generic as well as specialised ADHD parent training approaches - delivered either individually or in groups – have reported beneficial effects. High quality training, supervision of therapists and practice with the child, may improve outcomes but further evidence is required. Evidence for who benefits the most from behavioural interventions is scant. There is no evidence to limit behavioural treatments to parents with parenting difficulties or children with conduct problems. There are positive effects of additive school based intervention for the inattentive subtype. Targeting parental depression may enhance the effects of behavioural interventions. Conclusion: Parent training is an important part of the multi-modal treatment of children with ADHD which improves parenting, reduces levels of oppositional and non-compliant behaviours and may improve other aspects of functioning. However, blinded evidence does not support it as a specific tre

Background: Behavioural interventions are recommended for use with children and young people with ADHD, however specific guidance for their implementation based on the best available evidence is currently lacking. Methods: This review used an explicit question and answer format to address issues of clinical concern, based on expert interpretation of the evidence with precedence given to meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Results: On the basis of current evidence that takes into account whether outcomes are blinded, behavioural intervention cannot be supported as a front-line treatment for core ADHD symptoms. There is however, evidence from measures that are probably blinded that these interventions benefit parenting practices and improve conduct problems which commonly co-occur with ADHD, and are often the main reason for referral. Initial positive results have also been found in relation to parental knowledge, children’s emotional, social and academic functioning – although most studies have not used blinded outcomes. Generic as well as specialised ADHD parent training approaches - delivered either individually or in groups – have reported beneficial effects. High quality training, supervision of therapists and practice with the child, may improve outcomes but further evidence is required. Evidence for who benefits the most from behavioural interventions is scant. There is no evidence to limit behavioural treatments to parents with parenting difficulties or children with conduct problems. There are positive effects of additive school based intervention for the inattentive subtype. Targeting parental depression may enhance the effects of behavioural interventions. Conclusion: Parent training is an important part of the multi-modal treatment of children with ADHD which improves parenting, reduces levels of oppositional and non-compliant behaviours and may improve other aspects of functioning. However, blinded evidence does not support it as a specific tre