Search

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.

01 augustus 2023, Item does not contain fulltext, 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.

The COVID-19 pandemic led ADHD services to modify the clinical practice to reduce in-person contact as much as possible to minimise viral spread. This had far-reaching effects on day-to-day clinical practice as remote assessments were widely adopted. Despite the attenuation of the acute threat from COVID, many clinical services are retaining some remote practices. The lack of clear evidence-based guidance about the most appropriate way to conduct remote assessments meant that these changes were typically implemented in a localised, ad hoc, and un-coordinated way. Here, the European ADHD Guidelines Group (EAGG) discusses the strengths and weaknesses of remote assessment methods of children and adolescents with ADHD in a narrative review based on available data and expert opinions to highlight key recommendations for future studies and clinical practice. We conclude that going forward, despite remote working in clinical services functioning adequately during the pandemic, all required components of ADHD assessment should still be completed following national/international guidelines; however, the process may need adaptation. Social restrictions, including changes in education provision, can either mask or exacerbate features associated with ADHD and therefore assessment should carefully chart symptom profile and impairment prior to, as well as during an ongoing pandemic. While remote assessments are valuable in allowing clinical services to continue despite restrictions and may have benefits for routine care in the post-pandemic world, particular attention must be paid to those who may be at high risk but not be able to use/access remote technologies and prioritize these groups for conventional face-to-face assessments.

Contains fulltext : 220663.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

BACKGROUND: Behavioural interventions are recommended for use with children and young people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (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 and 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. CONCLUSIONS: Parent training is an important part of the multimodal treatment of children with ADHD, which improves parenting, reduces levels of oppositional and noncompliant behaviours and may improve other aspects of functioning. However, blinded evidence

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: We performed meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials to examine the effects of neurofeedback on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms and neuropsychological deficits in children and adolescents with ADHD. METHOD: We searched PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, ERIC, and CINAHAL through August 30, 2015. Random-effects models were employed. Studies were evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: We included 13 trials (520 participants with ADHD). Significant effects were found on ADHD symptoms rated by assessors most proximal to the treatment setting, that is, the least blinded outcome measure (standardized mean difference [SMD]: ADHD total symptoms = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.11-0.59; inattention = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.09-0.63; hyperactivity/impulsivity = 0.26, 95% CI = 0.08-0.43). Effects were not significant when probably blinded ratings were the outcome or in trials with active/sham controls. Results were similar when only frequency band training trials, the most common neurofeedback approach, were analyzed separately. Effects on laboratory measures of inhibition (SMD = 0.30, 95% CI = -0.10 to 0.70) and attention (SMD = 0.13, 95% CI = -0.09 to 0.36) were not significant. Only 4 studies directly assessed whether learning occurred after neurofeedback training. The risk of bias was unclear for many Cochrane Risk of Bias domains in most studies. CONCLUSION: Evidence from well-controlled trials with probably blinded outcomes currently fails to support neurofeedback as an effective treatment for ADHD. Future efforts should focus on implementing standard neurofeedback protocols, ensuring learning, and optimizing clinically relevant transfer.

Contains fulltext : 154796.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), OBJECTIVE: The authors performed meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials to examine the effects of cognitive training on attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms, neuropsychological deficits, and academic skills in children/adolescents with ADHD. METHOD: The authors searched Pubmed, Ovid, Web of Science, ERIC, and CINAHAL databases through May 18, 2014. Data were aggregated using random-effects models. Studies were evaluated with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Sixteen of 695 nonduplicate records were analyzed (759 children with ADHD). When all types of training were considered together, there were significant effects on total ADHD (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.09-0.66) and inattentive symptoms (SMD = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.14-0.80) for reports by raters most proximal to the treatment setting (i.e., typically unblinded). These figures decreased substantially when the outcomes were provided by probably blinded raters (ADHD total: SMD = 0.20, 95% CI = 0.01-0.40; inattention: SMD = 0.32, 95% CI = -0.01 to 0.66). Effects on hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms were not significant. There were significant effects on laboratory tests of working memory (verbal: SMD = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.24-0.80; visual: SMD = 0.47, 95% CI = 0.23-0.70) and parent ratings of executive function (SMD = 0.35, 95% CI = 0.08-0.61). Effects on academic performance were not statistically significant. There were no effects of working memory training, specifically on ADHD symptoms. Interventions targeting multiple neuropsychological deficits had large effects on ADHD symptoms rated by most proximal assessors (SMD = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.46-1.12). CONCLUSION: Despite improving working memory performance, cognitive training had limited effects on ADHD symptoms according to assessments based on blinded measures. Approaches targeting multiple neuropsychological processes may optimize the transfer of effects from cognitive deficits to clinical symptoms.

Item does not contain fulltext, OBJECTIVE: Behavioral interventions are recommended as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatments. However, a recent meta-analysis found no effects on core ADHD symptoms when raters were probably blind to treatment allocation. The present analysis is extended to a broader range of child and parent outcomes. METHOD: A systematic search in PubMed, Ovid, Web of Knowledge, ERIC, and CINAHAL databases (up to February 5, 2013) identified published randomized controlled trials measuring a range of patient and parent outcomes for children and adolescents diagnosed with ADHD (or who met validated cutoffs on rating scales). RESULTS: Thirty-two of 2,057 nonduplicate screened records were analyzed. For assessments made by individuals closest to the treatment setting (usually unblinded), there were significant improvements in parenting quality (standardized mean difference [SMD] for positive parenting 0.68; SMD for negative parenting 0.57), parenting self-concept (SMD 0.37), and child ADHD (SMD 0.35), conduct problems (SMD 0.26), social skills (SMD 0.47), and academic performance (SMD 0.28). With probably blinded assessments, significant effects persisted for parenting (SMD for positive parenting 0.63; SMD for negative parenting 0.43) and conduct problems (SMD 0.31). CONCLUSION: In contrast to the lack of blinded evidence of ADHD symptom decrease, behavioral interventions have positive effects on a range of other outcomes when used with patients with ADHD. There is blinded evidence that they improve parenting and decrease childhood conduct problems. These effects also may feed through into a more positive parenting self-concept but not improved parent mental well-being.

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: The efficacy of three dietary treatments for ADHD has been repeatedly tested in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). These interventions are restricted elimination diets (RED), artificial food colour elimination (AFCE) and supplementation with free fatty acids (SFFA). There have been three systematic reviews and associated meta-analyses of the RCTs for each of these treatments. SCOPE: The aim of this review is to critically appraise the studies on the dietary treatments of ADHD, to compare the various meta-analyses of their efficacy that have been published and to identify where the design of such RCTs could be improved and where further investigations are needed. FINDINGS: The meta-analyses differ in the inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to potentially eligible studies. The range of average effect sizes in standard deviation units is RED (0.29-1.2), AFCE (0.18-0.42) and SFFA (0.17-0.31). The methodology of many of the trials on which the meta-analyses are based is weak. CONCLUSIONS: Nevertheless, there is evidence from well-conducted studies for a small effect of SFFA. Restricted elimination diets may be beneficial, but large-scale studies are needed on unselected children, using blind assessment and including assessment of long-term outcome. Artificial food colour elimination is a potentially valuable treatment but its effect size remains uncertain, as does the type of child for whom it is likely to be efficacious. There are additional dietary supplements that have been used with children with ADHD. A systematic search identified 11 RCTs that investigated the effects of these food supplements. Despite positive results for some individual trials, more studies are required before conclusions can be reached on the value in reducing ADHD symptoms of any of these additional supplements.

Spatial working memory (SWM) is known to be impaired in children with ADHD-CT, whether anxiety is present or not. Yet, it remains unclear whether anxiety disorders add to the SWM impairments evident in ADHD-CT and whether these findings extend into adolescents with ADHD-CT and anxiety. Further, it is not yet known whether children and adolescents with carefully defined anxiety disorders alone, demonstrate SWM deficits. This study explored the association of SWM and its strategy and spatial span components in carefully defined children and adolescents (age 6-16 years) with ADHD-CT alone (N = 163; 14 % female), ADHD-CT and anxiety (N = 243; 23 % female), anxiety disorders alone (N = 69; 25 % female) compared to age- and gender-matched healthy control participants (N = 116; 19 % female). The relationship between SWM and its strategy and span components and core ADHD-CT symptoms and anxiety symptoms were also examined. There was no evidence of an additive effect of ADHD and anxiety on SWM, strategy and spatial span deficits. But, anxiety disorders alone were associated with impaired SWM and span performance compared to healthy control participants. In contrast, strategy did not differ between children and adolescents with anxiety disorders alone and healthy control participants, suggesting that with anxiety span is the most affected component. Further, these findings were age-independent. This study concurs with and extends current influential models about the cognitive effects of anxiety on performance in the setting of ADHD-CT. Clinical implications and future research directions are discussed.