BackgroundThe benefits of end‐user involvement in health‐care research are widely recognized by research agencies. There are few published evaluations of end‐user involvement in systematic reviews.Objectives(i) Describe end‐user involvement in a complex mixed‐methods systematic review of ADHD in schools, (ii) reflect on the impact of end‐user involvement, (iii) highlight challenges and benefits experienced and (iv) provide suggestions to inform future involvement.MethodsEnd‐users were involved in all stages of the project, both as authors and as members of an advisory group. In addition, several events were held with groups of relevant end‐users during the project.ResultsEnd‐user input (i) guided the direction of the research, (ii) contributed to a typology of interventions and outcomes, (iii) contributed to the direction of data analysis and (iv) contributed to the robustness of the syntheses by demonstrating the alignment of interim findings with lived experiences. Challenges included (i) managing expectations, (ii) managing the intensity of emotion, (iii) ensuring that involvement was fruitful for all not just the researcher, (iv) our capacity to communicate and manage the process and (v) engendering a sense of involvement amongst end‐users.ConclusionsEnd‐user involvement was an important aspect of this project. To minimize challenges in future projects, a recognition by the project management team and the funding provider that end‐user involvement even in evidence synthesis projects is resource intensive is essential to allow appropriate allocation of time and resources for meaningful engagement.

Background: Depression in young people may lead to reduced school attendance through social withdrawal, loss of motivation, sleep disturbance and low energy. We systematically reviewed the evidence for an association between depression and poor school attendance.Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched for quantitative studies with school-aged children and/or adolescents, reporting a measure of association between depression and school attendance. Articles were independently screened by two reviewers. Synthesis incorporated random-effects meta-analysis and narrative synthesis.Results: Searches identified 4930 articles. Nineteen studies from eight countries across North America, Europe, and Asia, were included. School attendance was grouped into: 1) absenteeism (i.e. total absences), 2) excused/medical absences, 3) unexcused absences/truancy, and 4) school refusal.Meta-analyses demonstrated small-to-moderate positive cross-sectional associations between depression and absenteeism (correlation coefficient r=0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.15, p=0.005, I 2 = 63%); and depression and unexcused absences/truancy (r=0.15, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.17, p<0.001, I 2 =4%; odds ratio=3.74, 95% confidence interval 2.11 to 6.60, p<0.001, I 2 =65%). Few studies reported associations with school refusal or excused/medical absences, and few utilised longitudinal data, although results from two studies suggested an association between depression and subsequent absenteeism.Limitations: Study quality was poor overall, and methodological heterogeneity, despite creating a broad evidence-base, restricted meta-analysis to only small subsamples of studies.Conclusions: Findings suggest associations between depression and poor school attendance, particularly absenteeism and unexcused absences/truancy. Clinicians and school staff should be alert to the possibility of depression in children and adolescents with poor attendance. Future research should utilise longitudinal data to confirm the direction of the association, investigate associations with excused absences, and test potential moderators of the relationship.

Background Although mental health difficulties can severely complicate the lives of children and young people (CYP) with long-term physical conditions (LTCs), there is a lack of evidence about the effectiveness of interventions to treat them. Objectives To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve the mental health of CYP with LTCs (review 1) and explore the factors that may enhance or limit their delivery (review 2). Data sources For review 1, 13 electronic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Science Citation Index. For review 2, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched. Supplementary searches, author contact and grey literature searches were also conducted. Review methods The first systematic review sought randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations of interventions to improve elevated symptoms of mental ill health in CYP with LTCs. Effect sizes for each outcome were calculated post intervention (Cohen’s d). When appropriate, random-effects meta-analyses produced pooled effect sizes (d). Review 2 located primary qualitative studies exploring experiences of CYP with LTCs, their families and/or practitioners, regarding interventions aiming to improve the mental health and well-being of CYP with LTCs. Synthesis followed the principles of metaethnography. An overarching synthesis integrated the findings from review 1 and review 2 using a deductive approach. End-user involvement, including topic experts and CYP with LTCs and their parents, was a feature throughout the project. Results Review 1 synthesised 25 RCTs evaluating 11 types of intervention, sampling 12 different LTCs. Tentative evidence from seven studies suggests that cognitive–behavioural therapy interventions could improve the mental health of CYP with certain LTCs. Intervention–LTC dyads were diverse, with few opportunities to meta-analyse. No economic evaluations were located. Review 2 synthesised 57 studies evaluating 21 types of intervention. Most studies were of individuals with cancer, a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection or mixed LTCs. Interventions often aimed to improve broader mental health and well-being, rather than symptoms of mental health disorder. The metaethnography identified five main constructs, described in an explanatory line of argument model of the experience of interventions. Nine overarching synthesis categories emerged from the integrated evidence, raising implications for future research. Limitations Review 1 conclusions were limited by the lack of evidence about intervention effectiveness. No relevant economic evaluations were located. There were no UK studies included in review 1, limiting the applicability of findings. The mental health status of participants in review 2 was usually unknown, limiting comparability with review 1. The different evidence identified by the two systematic reviews challenged the overarching synthesis. Conclusions There is a relatively small amount of comparable evidence for the effectiveness of interventions for the mental health of CYP with LTCs. Qualitative evidence provided insight into the experiences that intervention deliverers and recipients valued. Future research should evaluate potentially effective intervention components in high-quality RCTs integrating process evaluations. End-user involvement enriched the project. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001716. Funding The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

Well-designed pragmatic trials that include the evaluation of cost-effectiveness and detailed process evaluations are necessary to establish the accuracy of different identification models, as well as their effectiveness in connecting students to appropriate support in real-world settings.

BackgroundAttention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by age-inappropriate levels of inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. School can be particularly challenging for children with ADHD. Few reviews have considered non-pharmacological interventions in school settings.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions delivered in school settings for pupils with, or at risk of, ADHD and to explore the factors that may enhance, or limit, their delivery.Data sourcesTwenty electronic databases (including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Centre, The Cochrane Library and Education Research Complete) were searched from 1980 to February–August 2013. Three separate searches were conducted for four systematic reviews; they were supplemented with forward and backwards citation chasing, website searching, author recommendations and hand-searches of key journals.Review methodsThe systematic reviews focused on (1) the effectiveness of school-based interventions for children with or at risk of ADHD; (2) quantitative research that explores attitudes towards school-based non-pharmacological interventions for pupils with ADHD; (3) qualitative research investigating the attitudes and experiences of children, teachers, parents and others using ADHD interventions in school settings; and (4) qualitative research exploring the experience of ADHD in school among pupils, their parents and teachers more generally. Methods of synthesis included a random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression and narrative synthesis for review 1, narrative synthesis for review 2 and meta-ethnography and thematic analysis for reviews 3 and 4.ResultsFor review 1, 54 controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For the 36 meta-analysed randomised controlled trials, beneficial effects (p < 0.05) were observed for several symptom and scholastic outcomes. Mean weighted effect sizes ranged from very small (d+ < 0.20) to large (d+ ≥ 0.80), but substantial heterogeneity in effect size estimates across studies was reported. Moderator analyses were not able to clarify which intervention features were linked with effectiveness. For review 2, 28 included studies revealed that educators’ attitudes towards interventions ranged in positivity. Most interventions were rated positively or neutrally across different studies. The only intervention that consistently recorded positive attitudes from educators was daily report cards. For review 3, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Key findings included tensions regarding the preferred format of interventions, particularly how structured interventions were and the extent to which they are tailored to the child with ADHD. There were mixed views about the impact of interventions, although it was clear that interventions both influence and are influenced by the relationships held by children with ADHD and participants’ attitudes towards school and ADHD. For review 4, 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. Key findings included the importance of causal attributions that teachers, parents and pupils made about ADHD symptoms, the decisions teachers made about treatment, the self-perceptions pupils developed about themselves, the role of the classroom environment and stigma in aggravating ADHD symptoms, and the significant barrier to treatment posed by the common presence of conflict in relationships between pupils–teachers, parents–teachers and pupils–peers in relation to ADHD. An overarching synthesis of the four reviews highlighted the importance of the context affecting interventions. It suggested that ADHD psychoeducation and relationship-building skills are potential implications for interventions.LimitationsThe breadth of both interventions and outcomes in the reviewed studies presented a challenge for categorisation, analysis and interpretation in reviews 1–3. Across reviews, relatively few studies were conducted in the UK, limiting the applicability of findings to UK education. In reviews 1 and 2, the poor methodological quality of some included studies was identified as a barrier to establishing effectiveness or comparing attitudes. In review 3 the descriptive analysis used by the majority of studies constrained theorising during synthesis. Studies in review 4 lacked detail regarding important issues like gender, pupil maturity and school level.ConclusionFindings suggest some beneficial effects of non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD used in school settings, but substantial heterogeneity in effect sizes was seen across studies. The qualitative reviews demonstrate the importance of the context in which interventions are used. Future work should consider more rigorous evaluation of interventions, as well as focus on what works, for whom and in which contexts. Gaps in current research present opportunities for the development and testing of standardised tools to describe interventions, agreement on gold-standard outcome measures assessing ADHD behaviour and testing a range of potential moderators alongside intervention trials.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001716.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.