Exploring stimulant treatment in ADHD: narratives of young adolescents and their parents

BACKGROUND: Young adolescents’ and their parents’ experiences with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and its treatment were explored to investigate beliefs and attitudes regarding use of stimulant medication, and their influence on treatment decisions. METHODS: Using in-depth qualitative interviews, 12 adolescents with ADHD aged 12 – 15 years, and their parents described their experiences of ADHD and its treatment. Twenty four interviews, 12 with adolescents and 12 with their parents elicited detailed descriptions of beliefs about ADHD, attitudes about stimulant use and the circumstances surrounding treatment decisions. Verbatim transcripts were iteratively analyzed by a team of researchers following an interpretive interactionist framework. RESULTS: Young people offered three themes describing ADHD: 1) personality trait, 2) physical condition or disorder, and 3) minor issue or concern. Regarding medication use, youth described 1) benefits, 2) changes in sense of self, 3) adverse effects, and 4) desire to discontinue use. Parents’ beliefs were more homogeneous than youth beliefs, describing ADHD as a disorder requiring treatment. Most parents noted benefits from stimulant use. Themes were 1) medication as a last resort, 2) allowing the child to reach his or her potential; and 3) concerns about adverse and long-term effects. Families described how responsibility for treatment decisions is transferred from parent to adolescent over time. CONCLUSIONS: Young adolescents can have different beliefs about ADHD and attitudes about medication use from their parents. These beliefs and attitudes influence treatment adherence. Incorporating input from young adolescents when making clinical decisions could potentially improve continuity of treatment for youth with ADHD

Vulnerability pathways to mental health outcomes in children and parents during COVID-19

We examined pathways from pre-existing psychosocial and economic vulnerability to mental health difficulties and stress in families during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from two time points from a multi-cohort study initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic were used. Parents of children 6–18 years completed questionnaires on pre-COVID-19 socioeconomic and demographic factors in addition to material deprivation and stress due to COVID-19 restrictions, mental health, and family functioning. Youth 10 years and older also completed their own measures of mental health and stress. Using structural equation modelling, pathways from pre-existing vulnerability to material deprivation and stress due to COVID-19 restrictions, mental health, and family functioning, including reciprocal pathways, were estimated. Pre-existing psychosocial and economic vulnerability predicted higher material deprivation due to COVID-19 restrictions which in turn was associated with parent and child stress due to restrictions and mental health difficulties. The reciprocal effects between increased child and parent stress and greater mental health difficulties at Time 1 and 2 were significant. Reciprocal effects between parent and child mental health were also significant. Finally, family functioning at Time 2 was negatively impacted by child and parent mental health and stress due to COVID-19 restrictions at Time 1. Psychosocial and economic vulnerability is a risk factor for material deprivation during COVID-19, increasing the risk of mental health difficulties and stress, and their reciprocal effects over time within families. Implications for prevention policy and parent and child mental health services are discussed

Screen Use and Mental Health Symptoms in Canadian Children and Youth during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Importance: Longitudinal research on specific forms of electronic screen use and mental health symptoms in children and youth during COVID-19 is minimal. Understanding the association may help develop policies and interventions targeting specific screen activities to promote healthful screen use and mental health in children and youth. Objective: To determine whether specific forms of screen use (television [TV] or digital media, video games, electronic learning, and video-chatting time) were associated with symptoms of depression, anxiety, conduct problems, irritability, hyperactivity, and inattention in children and youth during COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: A longitudinal cohort study with repeated measures of exposures and outcomes was conducted in children and youth aged 2 to 18 years in Ontario, Canada, between May 2020 and April 2021 across 4 cohorts of children or youth: 2 community cohorts and 2 clinically referred cohorts. Parents were asked to complete repeated questionnaires about their children\u27s health behaviors and mental health symptoms during COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures: The exposure variables were children\u27s daily TV or digital media time, video game time, electronic-learning time, and video-chatting time. The mental health outcomes were parent-reported symptoms of child depression, anxiety, conduct problems and irritability, and hyperactivity/inattention using validated standardized tools. Results: This study included 2026 children with 6648 observations. In younger children (mean [SD] age, 5.9 [2.5] years; 275 male participants [51.7%]), higher TV or digital media time was associated with higher levels of conduct problems (age 2-4 years: β, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.10-0.35]; P \u3c.001; age ≥4 years: β, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02-0.11]; P =.007) and hyperactivity/inattention (β, 0.07 [95% CI, 0.006-0.14]; P =.04). In older children and youth (mean [SD] age, 11.3 [3.3] years; 844 male participants [56.5%]), higher levels of TV or digital media time were associated with higher levels of depression, anxiety, and inattention; higher levels of video game time were associated with higher levels of depression, irritability, inattention, and hyperactivity. Higher levels of electronic learning time were associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, higher levels of screen use were associated poor mental health of children and youth during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings suggest that policy intervention as well as evidence-informed social supports are needed to promote healthful screen use and mental health in children and youth during the pandemic and beyond

Mostly worse, occasionally better: impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of Canadian children and adolescents

This large cross-sectional study examined the impact of COVID-19 emergency measures on child/adolescent mental health for children/adolescents with and without pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses. Using adapted measures from the CRISIS questionnaire, parents of children aged 6–18 (N = 1013; 56% male; 62% pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis) and self-reporting children/adolescents aged 10–18 (N = 385) indicated changes in mental health across six domains: depression, anxiety, irritability, attention, hyperactivity, and obsessions/compulsions. Changes in anxiety, irritability, and hyperactivity were calculated for children aged 2–5 years using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. COVID-19 exposure, compliance with emergency measures, COVID-19 economic concerns, and stress from social isolation were measured with the CRISIS questionnaire. Prevalence of change in mental health status was estimated for each domain; multinomial logistic regression was used to determine variables associated with mental health status change in each domain. Depending on the age group, 67–70% of children/adolescents experienced deterioration in at least one mental health domain; however, 19–31% of children/adolescents experienced improvement in at least one domain. Children/adolescents without and with psychiatric diagnoses tended to experience deterioration during the first wave of COVID-19. Rates of deterioration were higher in those with a pre-exiting diagnosis. The rate of deterioration was variable across different age groups and pre-existing psychiatric diagnostic groups: depression 37–56%, anxiety 31–50%, irritability 40–66%, attention 40–56%, hyperactivity 23–56%, obsessions/compulsions 13–30%. Greater stress from social isolation was associated with deterioration in all mental health domains (all ORs 11.12–55.24). The impact of pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis was heterogenous, associated with deterioration in depression, irritability, hyperactivity, obsession/compulsions for some children (ORs 1.96–2.23) but also with improvement in depression, anxiety, and irritability for other children (ORs 2.13–3.12). Economic concerns were associated with improvement in anxiety, attention, and obsessions/compulsions (ORs 3.97–5.57). Children/adolescents with and without pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses reported deterioration. Deterioration was associated with increased stress from social isolation. Enhancing social interactions for children/adolescents will be an important mitigation strategy for current and future COVID-19 waves

Vulnerability pathways to mental health outcomes in children and parents during COVID-19

We examined pathways from pre-existing psychosocial and economic vulnerability to mental health difficulties and stress in families during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data from two time points from a multi-cohort study initiated during the COVID-19 pandemic were used. Parents of children 6–18 years completed questionnaires on pre-COVID-19 socioeconomic and demographic factors in addition to material deprivation and stress due to COVID-19 restrictions, mental health, and family functioning. Youth 10 years and older also completed their own measures of mental health and stress. Using structural equation modelling, pathways from pre-existing vulnerability to material deprivation and stress due to COVID-19 restrictions, mental health, and family functioning, including reciprocal pathways, were estimated. Pre-existing psychosocial and economic vulnerability predicted higher material deprivation due to COVID-19 restrictions which in turn was associated with parent and child stress due to restrictions and mental health difficulties. The reciprocal effects between increased child and parent stress and greater mental health difficulties at Time 1 and 2 were significant. Reciprocal effects between parent and child mental health were also significant. Finally, family functioning at Time 2 was negatively impacted by child and parent mental health and stress due to COVID-19 restrictions at Time 1. Psychosocial and economic vulnerability is a risk factor for material deprivation during COVID-19, increasing the risk of mental health difficulties and stress, and their reciprocal effects over time within families. Implications for prevention policy and parent and child mental health services are discussed

Mixed-methods study protocol for an evaluation of the mental health transition navigator model in child and adolescent mental health services : the Navigator Evaluation Advancing Transitions (NEAT) study

INTRODUCTION: Transition from child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) to community or adult mental health services (AMHS) is a highly problematic health systems hurdle, especially for transition-aged youth. A planned and purposeful transition process is often non-existent or experienced negatively by youth and their caregivers. Stakeholders, including youth and their caregivers, have demanded interventions to support more effective transitions, such a transition navigator. The transition navigator model uses a navigator to facilitate complex transitions from acute care CAMHS to community or AMHS. However, despite the widespread implementation of this model, there has been no evaluation of the programme, hindering its scalability. This paper describes the study protocol of the Navigator Evaluation Advancing Transitions study that aims to collaborate with patients, caregivers and clinicians in the evaluation of the navigator model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pre and post mixed-method study will be conducted, using the Triple Aim Framework, to evaluate the navigator model. We will recruit participants from one large tertiary and two community hospitals in Toronto, Canada. For the quantitative portion of the study, we will recruit a sample of 45 youth (15 at each site), aged 16-18, and their caregivers at baseline (referral to navigator) (T1) and 6 months (T2). Youth and caregiver participants will complete a set of standardised measures to assess mental health, service utilisation, and satisfaction outcomes. For the qualitative portion of the study, semistructured interviews will be conducted at 6 months (T2) with youth, their caregivers and clinicians to better understand their experience and satisfaction with the model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research Ethics Board (REB) approval has been obtained from the lead research sites, the University of Toronto and the Hospital for Sick Children. The results of the study will be reported in peer-reviewed publications, webinars and conferences and to all relevant stakeholders

A genetic investigation of sex bias in the prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Background Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) shows substantial heritability and is 2-7 times more common in males than females. We examined two putative genetic mechanisms underlying this sex bias: sex-specific heterogeneity and higher burden of risk in female cases. Methods We analyzed genome-wide autosomal common variants from the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium and iPSYCH Project (20,183 cases, 35,191 controls) and Swedish populationregister data (N=77,905 cases, N=1,874,637 population controls). Results Genetic correlation analyses using two methods suggested near complete sharing of common variant effects across sexes, with rg estimates close to 1. Analyses of population data, however, indicated that females with ADHD may be at especially high risk of certain comorbid developmental conditions (i.e. autism spectrum disorder and congenital malformations), potentially indicating some clinical and etiological heterogeneity. Polygenic risk score (PRS) analysis did not support a higher burden of ADHD common risk variants in female cases (OR=1.02 [0.98-1.06], p=0.28). In contrast, epidemiological sibling analyses revealed that the siblings of females with ADHD are at higher familial risk of ADHD than siblings of affected males (OR=1.14, [95% CI: 1.11-1.18], p=1.5E-15). Conclusions Overall, this study supports a greater familial burden of risk in females with ADHD and some clinical and etiological heterogeneity, based on epidemiological analyses. However, molecular genetic analyses suggest that autosomal common variants largely do not explain the sex bias in ADHD prevalence