Search

Background: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common childhood disorder with international prevalence estimates of 5 % in childhood, yet significant evidence exists that far fewer children receive ADHD services. In many countries, ADHD is assessed and diagnosed in specialist mental health or neuro-developmental paediatric clinics, to which referral by General (Family) Practitioners (GPs) is required. In such 'gatekeeper' settings, where GPs act as a filter to diagnosis and treatment, GPs may either not recognise potential ADHD cases, or may be reluctant to refer. This study systematically reviews the literature regarding GPs' views of ADHD in such settings. Methods: A search of nine major databases was conducted, with wide search parameters; 3776 records were initially retrieved. Studies were included if they were from settings where GPs are typically gatekeepers to ADHD services; if they addressed GPs' ADHD attitudes and knowledge; if methods were clearly described; and if results for GPs were reported separately from those of other health professionals. Results: Few studies specifically addressed GP attitudes to ADHD. Only 11 papers (10 studies), spanning 2000-2010, met inclusion criteria, predominantly from the UK, Europe and Australia. As studies varied methodologically, findings are reported as a thematic narrative, under the following themes: Recognition rate; ADHD controversy (medicalisation, stigma, labelling); Causes of ADHD; GPs and ADHD diagnosis; GPs and ADHD treatment; GP ADHD training and sources of information; and Age, sex differences in knowledge and attitudes. Conclusions: Across times and settings, GPs practising in first-contact gatekeeper settings had mixed and often unhelpful attitudes regarding the validity of ADHD as a construct, the role of medication and how parenting contributed to presentation. A paucity of training was identified, alongside a reluctance of GPs to become involved in shared care practice. If access to services is to be improved for possible ADHD cases, there needs to be a focused and collaborative approach to training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a common childhood psychiatric disorder. The management of ADHD has recently been highlighted. The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines network (SIGN) have both produced management guidelines. Doctors working within Primary Care in countries such as the United States play an important role in the management of ADHD. In the United Kingdom however the role of doctors in primary care in the management of ADHD, both individually and within shared care protocols, is only now being identified and defined. Is this role for Primary Care likely to be acceptable and effective? Discussion: There is some evidence that doctors working within Primary Care in the United Kingdom are willing to follow up children on medication for ADHD and carry out monitoring of physical status. However many feel unconfident in the management of ADHD and most have received little or no training in child psychiatry. There are also concerns that adverse media reports will have an undue influence on the attitudes of doctors within primary care to families with children suffering from ADHD. Summary: There are important barriers to be tackled before shared care protocols for ADHD can be successfully implemented in the United Kingdom. Tailored information about ADHD needs to be provided to doctors in primary care. Clear dialogue between planners and healthcare professionals from both primary and secondary care is essential to ensure that service delivery is acceptable to healthcare providers, tailored to their skills and is adequately resourced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is underdiagnosed in many European countries and the process of accessing care and diagnosis is complex and variable. In many countries, general practitioners (GPs) refer on to secondary care where individuals receive an assessment and, if appropriate, a diagnosis and access to care. It is therefore essential that GPs have a clear understanding of the disorder and its care pathways. While previous studies have highlighted potential barriers in GPs' ADHD awareness, this qualitative study aims to further explore individual stakeholders' experiences. Methods: Semi-structured interviews explored the views of multiple stakeholders- GPs (n = 5), healthcare specialists (n = 5), patients (adults with ADHD n = 5) and parents (n = 5) with experience of the presentation and management of ADHD in primary care. These interviews were analysed using thematic analyses and following principles of grounded theory. Results: Stakeholders described ADHD assessment, diagnosis and treatment as an intricate process. Many factors affected this process such as complex pathways, lack of services, limited GP recognition and knowledge, and communicative difficulties between and within multiple stakeholders. Conclusion: This analysis underlines the significant impact that receiving (or not) a diagnosis can have, and further explores muddled ADHD care pathways, highlighting key issues around GP identification and the shortage of adult services. Implications for practice and future research are discussed, suggesting a strong need for more commissioned pathways and GP specific educational programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Provisional Diagnostic Instrument (PDI-4) is a brief, adult self-report instrument for 4 common psychiatric diagnoses in primary care patients: major depressive episode (MDE), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and bipolar I disorder based on past or present mania. Our objective was to assess validity of the PDI-4 in a population independent of the study population originally used to develop the scale. Methods: An online version of the 17-item PDI-4 was administered to 1,047 adults in the US; respondents also completed the PHQ-9, HADS-A, CAARS-S, and MDQ within the online survey. Respondents self-reported diagnosis by a healthcare professional with the terms depression (n=221), anxiety (n=218), attention deficit disorder (n=206), bipolar or manic depressive disorder (n=195), or none of these (n=207). Statistical analyses examined convergent and discriminant validity, and operating characteristics of the PDI-4 relative to the individual, validated, self-rated scales PHQ-9, HADS-A, CAARS-S, and MDQ, for each PDI-4 diagnosis. Results: Convergent validity of the PDI-4 was supported by strong correlations with the corresponding individual scales (range of 0.63 [PDI-4 and MDQ] to 0.87 [PDI-4 and PHQ-9]). Operating characteristics of the PDI-4 were similar to results in the previous site-based study. The scale exhibited moderate sensitivities (0.52 [mania] to 0.70 [ADHD]) and strong specificities (0.86 [mania] to 0.92 [GAD]) using the individual scales as the gold standards. ANOVAs demonstrated that PDI-4 discriminated between subsets of patients defined by pre-specified severity level cutoff scores of the individual scales. However, overlapping symptoms and co-morbidities made differentiation between mental diagnoses much weaker than differentiation from the control group with none of the diagnoses. Conclusions: The PDI-4 appears to be a suitable, brief, self-rated tool for provisional diagnoses of common mental disorders. However, the high level of symptom overlap between these diagnoses emphasizes that such brief scales are not a replacement for thorough diagnostic evaluation by trained medical providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a costly and prevalent disorder in the U.S., especially among youth. However, significant disparities in diagnosis and treatment appear to be predicted by the race and insurance status of patients. Methods: This study employed a web-based factorial survey with four ADHD cases derived from an ADHD clinic, two diagnosed with ADHD in actual evaluation, and two not. Randomized measures included race and insurance status of the patients. Participants N = (187) included clinician members of regional and national practice-based research networks and the U.S. clinical membership of the Society of Teachers of Family Medicine. The main outcomes were decisions to 1) diagnose and 2) treat the cases, based upon the information presented, analyzed via binary logistic regression of the randomized factors and case indicators on diagnosis and treatment. Results: ADHD-positive cases were 8 times more likely to be diagnosed and 12 times more likely to be treated, and the male ADHD positive case was more likely to be diagnosed and treated than the female ADHD positive case. Uninsured cases were significantly more likely to be treated overall, but male cases that were uninsured were about half as likely to be diagnosed and treated with ADHD. Additionally, African-American race appears to increase the likelihood of medicinal treatment for ADHD and being both African-American and uninsured appears to cut the odds of medicinal treatment in half, but not significantly. Conclusions: Family physicians were competent at discerning between near-threshold ADHD-negative and ADHD positive cases. However, insurance status and race, as well as gender, appear to affect the likelihood of diagnosis and treatment for ADHD in Family Medicine settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is one of the most common child psychiatry disorders. General physicians (GP), as primary care providers, can have an important role in screening and treatment of ADHD. This study aimed to survey GPs' knowledge, attitude, and their views of their role in the screening, diagnosing and managing children with ADHD. Methods: Six hundred and sixty five general physicians in Shiraz, Iran, answered a self-reported questionnaire on ADHD. The questionnaire consisted of questions regarding socio-demographic characteristics such as age, the duration of practice as a GP, marital status, general knowledge about ADHD, and the management of ADHD. Results: Less than half of them believed that they have adequate knowledge and information about this disorder. They usually do not like to be the primary care providers for children with ADHD. The majority of them prefer to refer the children to related specialists, mostly psychiatrists or psychologists. More than one third of them believed that sugar is a cause of ADHD. Only 6.6% of them reported that ADHD persists for the whole life. Their knowledge about methylphenidate is reasonable. Conclusions: As many other countries worldwide, the knowledge of GPs about ADHD should be improved. They do not asses and manage children with probable ADHD by themselves without referring to related professionals. They do not opt for the use of methylphenidate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is underdiagnosed in the UK and the assessment and diagnosis pathway often involves a general practitioner (GP) referral to secondary care services. GPs' levels of knowledge and understanding about ADHD is often a significant barrier in patients accessing care. The development of an online education resource could improve GPs knowledge of ADHD and optimise appropriate referrals. Involving end-users in co-creating interventions may enhance their clinical utility and impact routine clinical practice. However, there is limited published evidence describing how to meaningfully involve stakeholders in both the design and development components of co-production. Method: We report a step wise, co-production approach towards developing an online ADHD education intervention for GPs. Preparatory work highlighted the relevant topics to be included in the intervention, from which educational videos were then developed. Workshops were then conducted with GPs, leading to further refinement of the video content and subsequently the final intervention. A pilot usability study (n = 10 GPs) was then conducted to assess the intervention's acceptability, feasibility and accessibility. Results: The development of the online intervention was greatly facilitated by the involvement of GPs. Having a co-production development process ensured the consistent adaptation of the intervention to meet GPs' needs. The usability study showed that the content of the intervention was suitable, easily accessible, engaging and delivered at an acceptable level of intensity, validating the development approach taken. Conclusion: While further studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of the developed intervention, preliminary findings demonstrated that it was acceptable and well received. The importance of co-development was highlighted in developing an intervention that addresses specific needs for GPs. This development approach may be useful for other researchers and developers of clinical interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many young people with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) have impairing symptoms that persist into adulthood, yet only a minority experience continuity of care into adult life. Despite growing emphasis on the primary care role in ADHD management in NICE ADHD and transition guidance, little is known about GPs' perspectives, which could hamper efforts to improve outcomes for young people leaving children's services. This study aimed to understand GPs' experiences of involvement with this group and explore their views on the roles and responsibilities of primary and secondary care in transition, to inform recommendations for policy and practice. Method: Qualitative interview study with GPs across the UK. Semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out with 14 GPs recruited through a linked mapping study, social media, and snowballing; data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: In the absence of a smooth transition from child to adult services, many GPs became involved 'by default'. GPs reacted by trying to identify suitable specialist services, and were faced with the decision of whether to continue ADHD prescribing. Such decisions were strongly influenced by perceptions that prescribing carried risks, and concerns over responsibility, particularly where specialist services were lacking. Participants described variation in service availability, and some highlighted tensions around how shared care works in practice. Conclusion: Implementation of NICE guidance is highly variable, with implications for GPs and patients. Risk and responsibility for primary care ADHD prescribing are central concerns that need to be addressed, as is the inclusion of GPs in a planned transition process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]