Adherence to guidelines in the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in children and adolescents in routine care:A representative survey

Objective: The study evaluated guideline adherence in the current routine care of children and adolescents with Attention Deficit-/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in various groups of healthcare providers nationwide. Method: N = 275 providers from all relevant groups of a Germany-wide random sample (specialists in pediatric and adolescent medicine, child and adolescent psychiatry and psychotherapy, child and adolescent psychotherapists and all Social Pediatric Centers, outpatient departments of child and adolescent psychiatric clinics and behavioral therapy training institutes) participated in an online interview. Results: The recommendations in the guidelines were implemented on average in 75-100% of the patients. Exceptions were those of teacher/educator exploration and school interventions. Questionnaires on diagnostics and follow-up or psychotherapeutic interventions were applied comparatively rarely, in about 50% of the patients. Differences between provider groups and correlations with sociodemographic variables were analyzed at the level of the adherence indices. Conclusions: Overall, the participants reported high guideline adherence. We found a high similarity of the data in different care segments within the care providers. Differences in self-reports of the various care groups stimulate considerations of the roles in the care process with ADHD patients

Guideline adherence in German routine care of children and adolescents with ADHD: an observational study

Although guidelines for the assessment and treatment of mental disorders in childhood and adolescence have been available in Germany for several years, there are barely any data on adherence to guidelines in national routine care. Therefore, the study aimed at a nationwide evaluation of guideline adherence (GA) for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in German routine care in various groups of health care providers (HCPs). Besides a detailed description of GA, the study focused on examining possible differences between professional groups. Furthermore, data based on global self-reports of clinicians were compared with ratings of documented care in individual patients. Protocols of 73 clinicians regarding their handling of ADHD in routine care for 167 patients were rated according to German guideline recommendations for ADHD care. GA was measured as the proportion of components fulfilled in each individual patient as documented by the HCP. The results were compared to a preceding interview with clinicians regarding their GA. Multilevel models were constructed to detect differences in GA between professional groups. Based on mandatory guideline components, adherence rates of 38.9-72.7% were found and classified as moderate (33.3% 66.6%). The comparison of the GA between the professional groups generally yielded only small differences. Correlations between GA reported globally by the HCPs and GA documented and rated for individual cases were low. Overall, most rates of GA for ADHD in German routine care lay within a moderate range. Targets for enhancement of GA may be the involvement of teachers and schools in the treatment process, the implementation of psychoeducational methods in general, as well as a careful examination of patients, including monitoring of treatment effects during titration trials. The development of further strategies to monitor the quality of ADHD routine care is needed

Irritability and Emotional Impulsivity as Core Feature of ADHD and ODD in Children (May, 10.1007/s10862-022-09974-8, 2022)

The categorical approach of diagnosing mental disorders entails the problem of frequently occurring comorbidities, suggesting a more parsimonious structure of psychopathology. In this study, we therefore aim to assess how affective dysregulation (AD) is associated with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) in children. To assess AD in children aged 8-12 years (n = 391), we employed the parent version of a newly constructed parent rating scale. Following item reduction, we conducted exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses to establish a factorial structure of AD. One core dimension was identified, comprising irritability and emotional impulsivity, and two smaller dimensions, comprising positive emotionality and exuberance. Subsequently, we examined five different latent factor models - a unidimensional model, a first-order correlated factor model, a second-order correlated factor model, a traditional bifactor model, and a bifactor S-1 model, in which the first-order factor AD-Irritability/Emotional Impulsivity (II) was modeled as the general reference factor. A bifactor S-1 model with the a priori defined general reference domain AD-II provided the best fit to our data and was straightforward to interpret. This model showed excellent model fit and no anomalous factor loadings. This still held true, when comparing it to bifactor S-1 models with ADHD/ODD-related reference factors. Differential correlations with emotion regulation skills and the established Parent Proxy Anger Scale validate the interpretation of the different dimensions. Our results suggest that irritability/emotional impulsivity might be a common core feature of ADHD and ODD

Progress feedback in children and adolescents with internalizing and externalizing symptoms in routine care (OPTIE study): study protocol of a randomized parallel-group trial

Background: Progress feedback provides therapists with progress notes on a regular basis through the continuous assessment of participants throughout their treatment (e.g., symptoms, therapeutic alliance). While for adults the evidence base has increased over the years, progress feedback in the therapy of children and adolescents has not been sufficiently investigated. This manuscript describes the trial protocol of the OPTIE study: a randomized trial that tests the efficacy of a progress feedback system in children and adolescents under conditions of routine care. Methods: The study is based on a randomized parallel-group trial with two treatment groups (routine, feedback) at an outpatient unit of a university hospital. The target sample size is 439 families consisting of children and adolescents aged 6 to17 years old with internalizing and/or externalizing symptoms. Both the patients and the therapists are independently assigned to the treatment groups by stratified block randomization. In both treatment groups patients receive routine care behavioral therapy for a study-related 12 months; additionally, in the feedback group, a progress feedback system with three components is applied (monitoring, report, and supervision). For three informants (caregiver, child [>= 11 years], therapist) surveys are conducted every 6 weeks (e.g., symptoms, goals, motivation). For both treatment groups, comparison data is collected at baseline and at six and 12 months after the beginning of the intervention (pre, inter, post), and includes five informants (blinded clinician, therapist, caregiver, child [>= 11 years], teacher). Discussion: The OPTIE study will contribute to the evidence base of progress feedback in children and adolescents and has the potential to uncover treatments' effects in the small to medium range. Noteworthy features are the inclusion of children younger than 10 years old and the consideration of a blinded clinician rating