Search

BackgroundIn response to COVID-19, there has been increasing momentum in telehealth development and delivery. To assess the anticipated exponential growth in telehealth, it is important to accurately capture how telehealth has been used in specific mental health fields prior to the pandemic. ObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to highlight how telehealth has been used with clinical samples in the neurodevelopmental field, including patients with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), their families, and health care professionals. To identify which technologies show the greatest potential for implementation into health services, we evaluated technologies for effectiveness, economic impact, and readiness for clinical adoption. MethodsA systematic search of literature was undertaken in April 2018 and updated until December 2019, by using the Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, and PsycInfo databases. Extracted data included the type of technology, how the technology was used (ie, assessment, treatment, and monitoring), participant characteristics, reported outcomes and authors’ views on clinical effectiveness, user impact (ie, feasibility and acceptability), economic impact, and readiness for clinic adoption. A quality review of the research was performed in accordance with the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. ResultsA total of 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. These studies included participants and family members with autism spectrum disorders (21/42, 50%), attention deficit hyperactivity disorders (8/42, 19%), attention deficit hyperactivity or autism spectrum disorders (3/42, 7%), communication disorders (7/42, 17%), and tic disorders (2/42, 5%). The focus of most studies (33/42, 79%) was on treatment, rather than assessment (4/42, 10%) or monitoring (5/42, 12%). Telehealth services demonstrated promise for being clinically effective, predominantly in relation to diagnosing and monitoring NDDs. In terms of NDD treatment, telehealth services were usually equivalent to control groups. There was some evidence of positive user and economic impacts, including increased service delivery efficiency (eg, increased treatment availability and decreased waiting times). However, these factors were not widely recorded across the studies. Telehealth was demonstrated to be cost-effective in the few studies that considered cost-effectiveness. Study quality varied, as many studies had small sample sizes and inadequate control groups. Of the 42 studies, only 11 (26%) were randomized controlled trials, 12 (29%) were case studies or case series, 6 (14%) were qualitative studies, and 5 (12%) were noncomparative trials. ConclusionsTelehealth has the potential to increase treatment availability, decrease diagnosis waiting times, and aid in NDD monitoring. Further research with more robust and adequately powered study designs that consider cost-effectiveness and increased efficiency is needed. This systematic review highlights the extent of telehealth technology use prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and the movement for investing in remote access to treatments. Trial RegistrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42018091156; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018091156

Background: To contextualize the benefits of an intervention, it is important that adverse events (AEs) are reported. This is potentially difficult in trials of digital mental health interventions, where delivery may be remote and the mechanisms of actions less understood. Objective: We aimed to explore the reporting of AEs in randomized controlled trials of digital mental health interventions. Methods: The International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number database was searched for trials registered before May 2022. Using advanced search filters, we identified 2546 trials in the category of mental and behavioral disorders. These trials were independently reviewed by 2 researchers against the eligibility criteria. Trials were included where digital mental health interventions for participants with a mental health disorder were evaluated through a completed randomized controlled trial (protocol and primary results publication published). Published protocols and primary results publications were then retrieved. Data were extracted independently by 3 researchers, with discussion to reach consensus when required. Results: Twenty-three trials met the eligibility criteria, of which 16 (69%) included a statement on AEs within a publication, but only 6 (26%) reported AEs within their primary results publication. Seriousness was referred to by 6 trials, relatedness by 4, and expectedness by 2. More interventions delivered with human support (9/11, 82%) than those with only remote or no support (6/12, 50%) included a statement on AEs, but they did not report more AEs. Several reasons for participant dropout were identified by trials that did not report AEs, of which some were identifiable or related to AEs, including serious AEs. Conclusions: There is significant variation in the reporting of AEs in trials of digital mental health interventions. This variation may reflect limited reporting processes and difficulty recognizing AEs related to digital mental health interventions. There is a need to develop guidelines specifically for these trials to improve future reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

The Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham Rating Scale (SNAP-IV) is a widely used scale that measures the core symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). However, there are contradictory findings regarding factor structure. Factor structure and measurement equivalence/invariance analysis on parent and teacher SNAP-IV for children referred for an ADHD assessment (N = 250; 6-17 years), revealed a two-factor structure provided the best fit. SNAP-IV scores were also compared with clinician diagnosis of ADHD and research diagnoses of ADHD and hyperkinetic disorder. Parent ratings of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity were good predictors of research but not clinician diagnosis. For teacher ratings, only hyperactivity/impulsivity scores were associated with research and clinician diagnosis. SNAP-IV scores showed high sensitivity but low specificity to clinician diagnosis. The SNAP-IV is a valid outcome measure for use in randomized controlled trials and clinical settings, and is best used as a screening rather than a diagnostic tool for ADHD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for attention deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) state that young people need to have access to the best evidence-based care to improve outcome. The current 'gold standard' ADHD diagnostic assessment combines clinical observation with subjective parent, teacher and self-reports. In routine practice, reports from multiple informants may be unavailable or contradictory, leading to diagnostic uncertainty and delay. The addition of objective tests of attention and activity may help reduce diagnostic uncertainty and delays in initiating treatment leading to improved outcomes. This trial investigates whether providing clinicians with an objective report of levels of attention, impulsivity and activity can lead to an earlier, and more accurate, clinical diagnosis and improved patient outcome. Methods and analysis: This multisite randomised controlled trial will recruit young people (aged 6- 17 years old) who have been referred for an ADHD diagnostic assessment at Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS) and Community Paediatric clinics across England. Routine clinical assessment will be augmented by the QbTest, incorporating a continuous performance test (CPT) and infrared motion tracking of activity. The participant will be randomised into one of two study arms: QbOpen (clinician has immediate access to a QbTest report): QbBlind (report is withheld until the study end). Primary outcomes are time to diagnosis and diagnostic accuracy. Secondary outcomes include clinician's diagnostic confidence and routine clinical outcome measures. Cost-effective analysis will be conducted, alongside a qualitative assessment of the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating QbTest in routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) relies on subjective methods which can lead to diagnostic uncertainty and delay. This trial evaluated the impact of providing a computerised test of attention and activity (QbTest) report on the speed and accuracy of diagnostic decision-making in children with suspected ADHD., Methods: Randomised, parallel, single-blind controlled trial in mental health and community paediatric clinics in England. Participants were 6-17 years-old and referred for ADHD diagnostic assessment; all underwent assessment-as-usual, plus QbTest. Participants and their clinician were randomised to either receive the QbTest report immediately (QbOpen group) or the report was withheld (QbBlind group). The primary outcome was number of consultations until a diagnostic decision confirming/excluding ADHD within 6-months from baseline. Health economic cost-effectiveness and cost utility analysis was conducted. Assessing QbTest Utility in ADHD: A Randomised Controlled Trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02209116)., Results: One hundred and thirty-two participants were randomised to QbOpen group (123 analysed) and 135 to QbBlind group (127 analysed). Clinicians with access to the QbTest report (QbOpen) were more likely to reach a diagnostic decision about ADHD (hazard ratio 1.44, 95% CI 1.04-2.01). At 6-months, 76% of those with a QbTest report had received a diagnostic decision, compared with 50% without. QbTest reduced appointment length by 15% (time ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93), increased clinicians' confidence in their diagnostic decisions (odds ratio 1.77, 95% CI 1.09-2.89) and doubled the likelihood of excluding ADHD. There was no difference in diagnostic accuracy. Health economic analysis showed a position of strict dominance; however, cost savings were small suggesting that the impact of providing the QbTest report within this trial can best be viewed as 'cost neutral'., Conclusions: QbTest may increase the efficiency of ADHD assessment pathway allowing greater patient throughput with clinicians reaching diagnostic decisions faster without compromising diagnostic accuracy., (© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.)