No abstract

Background: Despite evidence-based national guidelines for ADHD in the United Kingdom (UK), ADHD is under-identified, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. Many seeking help for ADHD face prejudice, long waiting lists, and patchy or unavailable services, and are turning to service-user support groups and/or private healthcare for help.Methods: A group of UK experts representing clinical and healthcare providers from public and private healthcare, academia, ADHD patient groups, educational, and occupational specialists, met to discuss shortfalls in ADHD service provision in the UK. Discussions explored causes of under-diagnosis, examined biases operating across referral, diagnosis and treatment, together with recommendations for resolving these matters.Results: Cultural and structural barriers operate at all levels of the healthcare system, resulting in a de-prioritization of ADHD. Services for ADHD are insufficient in many regions, and problems with service provision have intensified as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has established a range of adverse outcomes of untreated ADHD, and associated long-term personal, social, health and economic costs are high. The consensus group called for training of professionals who come into contact with people with ADHD, increased funding, commissioning and monitoring to improve service provision, and streamlined communication between health services to support better outcomes for people with ADHD.Conclusions: Evidence-based national clinical guidelines for ADHD are not being met. People with ADHD should have access to healthcare free from discrimination, and in line with their legal rights. UK Governments and clinical and regulatory bodies must act urgently on this important public health issue.

Background: Autism spectrum disorder is a diagnosis that is increasingly applied; however, previous studies have conflicting findings whether rates of diagnosis rates continue to grow in the UK. This study tested whether the proportion of people receiving a new autism diagnosis has been increasing over a twenty-year period, both overall and by subgroups. Method: Population-based study utilizing the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) primary care database, which contains patients registered with practices contributing data to the CPRD

Overall, we found moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that probiotics may be effective in improving pain in children with RAP. Clinicians may therefore consider probiotic interventions as part of a holistic management strategy. However, further trials are needed to examine longer-term outcomes and to improve confidence in estimating the size of the effect, as well as to determine the optimal strain and dosage. Future research should also explore the effectiveness of probiotics in children with different symptom profiles, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome.We found only a small number of trials of fibre-based interventions, with overall low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There was therefore no convincing evidence that fibre-based interventions improve pain in children with RAP. Further high-quality RCTs of fibre supplements involving larger numbers of participants are required. Future trials of low FODMAP diets and other dietary interventions are also required to facilitate evidence-based recommendations.

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.

The data from trials to date provide some evidence for beneficial effects of CBT and hypnotherapy in reducing pain in the short term in children and adolescents presenting with RAP. There was no evidence for the effectiveness of yoga therapy or written self-disclosure therapy. There were insufficient data to explore effects of treatment by RAP subtype.Higher-quality, longer-duration trials are needed to fully investigate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions. Identifying the active components of the interventions and establishing whether benefits are sustained in the long term are areas of priority. Future research studies would benefit from employing active control groups to help minimise potential bias from wait-list control designs and to help account for therapist and intervention time.

BackgroundOptimal transition from child to adult services involves continuity, joint care, planning meetings and information transfer; commissioners and service providers therefore need data on how many people require that service. Although attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) frequently persists into adulthood, evidence is limited on these transitions.AimsTo estimate the national incidence of young people taking medication for ADHD that require and complete transition, and to describe the proportion that experienced optimal transition.MethodSurveillance over 12 months using the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit and Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Surveillance System, including baseline notification and follow-up questionnaires.ResultsQuestionnaire response was 79% at baseline and 82% at follow-up. For those aged 17–19, incident rate (range adjusted for non-response) of transition need was 202–511 per 100 000 people aged 17–19 per year, with successful transition of 38–96 per 100 000 people aged 17–19 per year. Eligible young people with ADHD were mostly male (77%) with a comorbid condition (62%). Half were referred to specialist adult ADHD and 25% to general adult mental health services; 64% had referral accepted but only 22% attended a first appointment. Only 6% met optimal transition criteria.ConclusionsAs inclusion criteria required participants to be on medication, these estimates represent the lower limit of the transition need. Two critical points were apparent: referral acceptance and first appointment attendance. The low rate of successful transition and limited guideline adherence indicates significant need for commissioners and service providers to improve service transition experiences.Declaration of interestNone.

Background: The high volume and pace of research has posed challenges to researchers, policymakers and practitioners wanting to understand the overall impact of the pandemic on children and young people's mental health. We aimed to search for and review the evidence from epidemiological studies to answer the question: how has mental health changed in the general population of children and young people? Methods: Four databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO) were searched in October 2021, with searches updated in February 2022. We aimed to identify studies of children or adolescents with a mean age of 18 years or younger at baseline, that reported change on a validated mental health measure from prepandemic to during the pandemic. Abstracts and full texts were double-screened against inclusion criteria and quality assessed using a risk of bias tool. Studies were narratively synthesised, and meta-analyses were performed where studies were sufficiently similar. Results: 6917 records were identified, and 51 studies included in the review. Only four studies had a rating of high quality. Studies were highly diverse in terms of design, setting, timing in relation to the pandemic, population, length of follow-up and choice of measure. Methodological heterogeneity limited the potential to conduct meta-analyses across studies. Whilst the evidence suggested a slight deterioration on some measures, overall, the findings were mixed, with no clear pattern emerging. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for a more harmonised approach to research in this field. Despite the sometimes-inconsistent results of our included studies, the evidence supports existing concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on children's mental health and on services for this group, given that even small changes can have a significant impact on provision at population level. Children and young people must be prioritised in pandemic recovery, and explicitly considered in planning for any future pandemic response.