BackgroundGuidelines in the United Kingdom recommend that medication titration for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) should be completed within 4-6 weeks and include regular reviews. However, most clinicians think that weekly clinic contact is infeasible, and audits have shown that this timeline is rarely achieved. Thus, a more effective monitoring and review system is needed; remote monitoring technology (RMT) may be one way to improve current practice. However, little is known about whether patients with ADHD, their families, and clinicians would be interested in using RMT.ObjectiveTo explore patients’, parents’, and health care professionals’ views and attitudes toward using digital technology for remote monitoring during titration for ADHD.MethodsThis was a qualitative study, and data were collected through 11 focus groups with adults and young people with ADHD, parents of children with ADHD, and health care professionals (N=59).ResultsAll participant groups were positive about using RMT in the treatment of ADHD, but they were also aware of barriers to its use, especially around access to technology and integrating RMT into clinical care. They identified that RMT had the most potential for use in the ongoing management and support of ADHD, rather than during the distinct titration period. Participants identified features of RMT that could improve the quality of consultations and support greater self-management.ConclusionsRMT has the potential to augment support and care for ADHD, but it needs to go beyond the titration period and offer more to patients and families than monitoring through outcome measures. Developing and evaluating an mHealth app that incorporates the key features identified by end users is required.

Objective: To systematically review published RCTs of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for adult ADHD and establish the effectiveness of CBT reducing ADHD symptoms.

BackgroundCommon foot problems are independent risk factors for falls in older people. There is evidence that podiatry can prevent falls in community-dwelling populations. The feasibility of implementing a podiatry intervention and trial in the care home population is unknown. To inform a potential future definitive trial, we performed a pilot randomised controlled trial to assess: (i) the feasibility of a trial of a podiatry intervention to reduce care home falls, and (ii) the potential direction and magnitude of the effect of the intervention in terms of number of falls in care home residents.MethodsInformed by Medical Research Council guidance on developing and evaluating complex interventions, we conducted a single blind, pilot randomised controlled trial in six care homes in the East of Scotland. Participants were randomised to either: (i) a three month podiatry intervention comprising core podiatry care, foot and ankle exercises, orthoses and footwear provision or (ii) usual care. Falls-related outcomes (number of falls, time to first fall) and feasibility-related outcomes (recruitment, retention, adherence, data collection rates) were collected. Secondary outcomes included: generic health status, balance, mobility, falls efficacy, and ankle joint strength.Results474 care home residents were screened. 43 (9.1%) participants were recruited: 23 to the intervention, 20 to control. Nine (21%) participants were lost to follow-up due to declining health or death. It was feasible to deliver the trial elements in the care home setting. 35% of participants completed the exercise programme. 48% reported using the orthoses ‘all or most of the time’. Completion rates of the outcome measures were between 93% and 100%. No adverse events were reported. At the nine month follow-up period, the intervention group per-person fall rate was 0.77 falls vs. 0.83 falls in the control group.ConclusionsA podiatry intervention to reduce falls can be delivered to care home residents within a pilot randomised controlled trial of the intervention. Although not powered to determine effectiveness, these preliminary data provide justification for a larger trial, incorporating a full process evaluation, to determine whether this intervention can significantly reduce falls in this high-risk population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02178527; Date of registration: 17 June 2014.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0541-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Bacterial conjugate vaccines have dramatically changed the epidemiology of childhood meningitis; viral causes are increasingly predominant, but the current UK epidemiology is unknown. This prospective study recruited children under 16 years of age admitted to 3 UK hospitals with suspected meningitis. 70/388 children had meningitis-13 bacterial, 26 viral and 29 with no pathogen identified. Group B Streptococcus was the most common bacterial pathogen. Infants under 3 months of age with bacterial meningitis were more likely to have a reduced Glasgow Coma Score and respiratory distress than those with viral meningitis or other infections. There were no discriminatory clinical features in older children. Cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) white blood cell count and plasma C-reactive protein at all ages, and CSF protein in infants <3 months of age, distinguished between bacterial meningitis and viral meningitis or other infections. Improved diagnosis of non-bacterial meningitis is urgently needed to reduce antibiotic use and hospital stay.