Search

This meta-analysis investigated the effects of computerized cognitive training (CCT) on clinical, neuropsychological and academic outcomes in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The authors searched PubMed, Ovid, and Web of Science until 19th January 2022 for parallel-arm randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using CCT in individuals with ADHD. Random-effects meta-analyses pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) between CCT and comparator arms. RCT quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool (PROSPERO: CRD42021229279). Thirty-six RCTs were meta-analysed, 17 of which evaluated working memory training (WMT). Analysis of outcomes measured immediately post-treatment and judged to be “probably blinded” (PBLIND; trial n = 14) showed no effect on ADHD total (SMD = 0.12, 95%CI[−0.01 to −0.25]) or hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms (SMD = 0.12, 95%[−0.03 to−0.28]). These findings remained when analyses were restricted to trials (n: 5–13) with children/adolescents, low medication exposure, semi-active controls, or WMT or multiple process training. There was a small improvement in inattention symptoms (SMD = 0.17, 95%CI[0.02–0.31]), which remained when trials were restricted to semi-active controls (SMD = 0.20, 95%CI[0.04–0.37]), and doubled in size when assessed in the intervention delivery setting (n = 5, SMD = 0.40, 95%CI[0.09–0.71]), suggesting a setting-specific effect. CCT improved WM (verbal: n = 15, SMD = 0.38, 95%CI[0.24–0.53]; visual-spatial: n = 9, SMD = 0.49, 95%CI[0.31–0.67]), but not other neuropsychological (e.g., attention, inhibition) or academic outcomes (e.g., reading, arithmetic; analysed n: 5–15). Longer-term improvement (at ~6-months) in verbal WM, reading comprehension, and ratings of executive functions were observed but relevant trials were limited in number (n: 5–7). There was no evidence that multi-process training was superior to working memory training. In sum, CCT led to shorter-term improvements in WM, with some evidence that verbal WM effects persisted in the longer-term. Clinical effects were limited to small, setting specific, short-term effects on inattention symptoms., Molecular Psychiatry, 28 (4), ISSN:1359-4184, ISSN:1476-5578

The COVID-19 pandemic led ADHD services to modify the clinical practice to reduce in-person contact as much as possible to minimise viral spread. This had far-reaching effects on day-to-day clinical practice as remote assessments were widely adopted. Despite the attenuation of the acute threat from COVID, many clinical services are retaining some remote practices. The lack of clear evidence-based guidance about the most appropriate way to conduct remote assessments meant that these changes were typically implemented in a localised, ad hoc, and un-coordinated way. Here, the European ADHD Guidelines Group (EAGG) discusses the strengths and weaknesses of remote assessment methods of children and adolescents with ADHD in a narrative review based on available data and expert opinions to highlight key recommendations for future studies and clinical practice. We conclude that going forward, despite remote working in clinical services functioning adequately during the pandemic, all required components of ADHD assessment should still be completed following national/international guidelines; however, the process may need adaptation. Social restrictions, including changes in education provision, can either mask or exacerbate features associated with ADHD and therefore assessment should carefully chart symptom profile and impairment prior to, as well as during an ongoing pandemic. While remote assessments are valuable in allowing clinical services to continue despite restrictions and may have benefits for routine care in the post-pandemic world, particular attention must be paid to those who may be at high risk but not be able to use/access remote technologies and prioritize these groups for conventional face-to-face assessments., European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32 (6), ISSN:1435165X, ISSN:1435-165X, ISSN:1018-8827

PurposeThe presence of distinct child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS) and adult mental health services (AMHS) impacts continuity of mental health treatment for young people. However, we do not know the extent of discontinuity of care in Europe nor the effects of discontinuity on the mental health of young people. Current research is limited, as the majority of existing studies are retrospective, based on small samples or used non-standardised information from medical records. The MILESTONE prospective cohort study aims to examine associations between service use, mental health and other outcomes over 24 months, using information from self, parent and clinician reports.ParticipantsSeven hundred sixty-three young people from 39 CAMHS in 8 European countries, their parents and CAMHS clinicians who completed interviews and online questionnaires and were followed up for 2 years after reaching the upper age limit of the CAMHS they receive treatment at.Findings to dateThis cohort profile describes the baseline characteristics of the MILESTONE cohort. The mental health of young people reaching the upper age limit of their CAMHS varied greatly in type and severity: 32.8% of young people reported clinical levels of self-reported problems and 18.6% were rated to be ‘markedly ill’, ‘severely ill’ or ‘among the most extremely ill’ by their clinician. Fifty-seven per cent of young people reported psychotropic medication use in the previous half year.Future plansAnalysis of longitudinal data from the MILESTONE cohort will be used to assess relationships between the demographic and clinical characteristics of young people reaching the upper age limit of their CAMHS and the type of care the young person uses over the next 2 years, such as whether the young person transitions to AMHS. At 2 years follow-up, the mental health outcomes of young people following different care pathways will be compared.Trial registration numberNCT03013595., publishedVersion

In April 2020, the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) Research Academy and the ESCAP Board launched the first questionnaire of the CovCAP longitudinal survey to estimate the impact of COVID-19 on child and adolescent psychiatry (CAP) services in Europe. In this brief report, we present the main findings from the second questionnaire of the survey, one year after the COVID-19 pandemic began to hit Europe (i.e., February/March 2021). While service delivery to patients and their families was affected in a major way (reported by 68%) at the beginning of the pandemic, the majority of respondents (59%) in this second survey only reported a minor impact on care delivery. The use of telemedicine remained widespread (91%) but the proportion of CAP services partially closed or transformed to accommodate COVID-19 patients (59% in 2020) dropped to 20%. On the other hand, the perceived impact on the mental health and psychopathology of children and adolescents dramatically increased from “medium” (> 50%) in 2020 to “strong” or “extreme” (80%) in 2021. Four nosographic entities were particularly impacted: suicidal crises, anxiety disorders, eating disorders and major depressive episodes. Accordingly, this was associated with a substantial increase in the number of referrals or requests for assessments (91% reported an increase in 2021 while 61% reported a decrease in 2020). Finally, heads of the CAP departments expressed strong concerns regarding the management of the long-term consequences of this crisis, especially regarding the provision of care in light of the perceived increase in referrals. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00787-021-01851-1.

In April 2020, the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) Research Academy and the ESCAP Board launched the first of three scheduled surveys to evaluate the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on child and adolescent psychiatry (CAP) services in Europe and to assess the abilities of CAP centers to meet the new challenges brought on by the crisis. The survey was a self-report questionnaire, using a multistage process, which was sent to 168 heads of academic CAP services in 24 European countries. Eighty-two responses (56 complete) from 20 countries, representing the subjective judgement of heads of CAP centers, were received between mid-April and mid-May 2020. Most respondents judged the impact of the crisis on the mental health of their patients as medium (52%) or strong (33%). A large majority of CAP services reported no COVID-19 positive cases among their inpatients and most respondents declared no or limited sick leaves in their team due to COVID-19. Outpatient, daycare, and inpatient units experienced closures or reductions in the number of treated patients throughout Europe. In addition, a lower referral rate was observed in most countries. Respondents considered that they were well equipped to handle COVID-19 patients despite a lack of protective equipment. Telemedicine was adopted by almost every team despite its sparse use prior to the crisis. Overall, these first results were surprisingly homogeneous, showing a substantially reduced patient load and a moderate effect of the COVID-19 crisis on psychopathology. The effect on the organization of CAP services appears profound. COVID-19 crisis has accelerated the adoption of new technologies, including telepsychiatry. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00787-020-01699-x.