Search

Introduction Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is among the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents, and it is a strong risk factor for several adverse psychosocial outcomes over the lifespan. There are large between-country and within-country variations in diagnosis and medication rates. Due to ethical and practical considerations, a few studies have examined the effects of receiving a diagnosis, and there is a lack of research on effects of medication on long-term outcomes. Our project has four aims organised in four work packages: (WP1) To examine the prognosis of ADHD (with and without medication) compared with patients with other psychiatric diagnoses, patients in contact with public sector child and adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics (without diagnosis) and the general population; (WP2) Examine within-country variation in ADHD diagnoses and medication rates by clinics' catchment area; and(WP3) Identify causal effects of being diagnosed with ADHD and (WP4) ADHD medication on long-term outcomes. Method and analysis Our project links several nationwide Norwegian registries. The patient sample is all persons aged 5-18 years that were in contact with public sector child and adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics in 2009-2011. Our comparative analysis of prognosis will be based on survival analysis and mixed-effects models. Our analysis of variation will apply mixed-effects models and generalised linear models. We have two identification strategies for the effect of being diagnosed with ADHD and of receiving medication on long-term outcomes. Both strategies rely on using preference-based instrumental variables, which in our project are based on provider preferences for ADHD diagnosis and medication. Ethics and dissemination The project is approved by the Regional Ethics Committee, Norway (REC number 2017/2150/REC south-east D). All papers will be published in open-access journals and results will be presented in national and

Objectives: Compulsory mental health care includes compulsory hospitalisation and outpatient commitment with medication treatment without consent. Uncertain evidence of the effects of compulsory care contributes to large geographical variations and a controversy on its use. Some argue that compulsion can rarely be justified and should be reduced to an absolute minimum, while others claim compulsion can more frequently be justified. The limited evidence base has contributed to variations in care that raise issues about the quality/appropriateness of care as well as ethical concerns. To address the question whether compulsory mental health care results in superior, worse or equivalent outcomes for patients, this project will utilise registry‐ based longitudinal data to examine the effect of compulsory inpatient and outpatient care on multiple outcomes, including suicide and overall mortality; emergency care/injuries; crime and victimisation; and participation in the labour force and welfare dependency. Methods: By using the natural variation in health providers' preference for compulsory care as a source of quasi‐randomisation we will estimate causal effects of compulsory care on short‐ and long‐term trajectories. Conclusions: This project will provide valuable insights for service providers and policy makers in facilitating high quality clinical care pathways for a high risk population group.

Objective: Preference-based instrumental variables (PP IV) designs can identify causal effects when patients receive treatment due to variation in providers’ treatment preference. We offer a systematic review and methodological assessment of PP IV applications in health research. Study Design and Setting: We included studies that applied PP IV for evaluation of any treatment in any population in health research (PROSPERO: CRD42020165014). We searched within four databases (Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink) and four journals (including full-text and title and abstract sources) between January 1, 1998, and March 5, 2020. We extracted data on areas of applications and methodology, including assumptions using Swanson and Hernan’s (2013) guideline. Results: We included 185 of 1087 identified studies. The use of PP IV has increased, being predominantly used for treatment effects in cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health. The most common PP IV was treatment variation at the facility-level, followed by physician- and regional-level. Only 12 percent of applications report the four main assumptions for PP IV. Selection on treatment may be a potential issue in 46 percent of studies. Conclusion: The assumptions of PP IV are not sufficiently reported in existing work. PP IV studies should use reporting guidelines.

Objective: Individual placement and support (IPS) has shown consistently better outcomes on competitive employment for patients with severe mental illness than traditional vocational rehabilitation. The evidence for efficacy originates from few countries, and generalization to different countries has been questioned. This has delayed implementation of IPS and led to requests for country-specific RCTs. This meta-analysis examines if evidence for IPS efficacy can be generalized between rather different countries. Methods: A systematic search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to identify RCTs. Overall efficacy was established by meta-analysis. The generalizability of IPS efficacy between countries was analysed by random-effects meta-regression, employing country- and date-specific contextual data obtained from the OECD and the World Bank. Results: The systematic review identified 27 RCTs. Employment rates are more than doubled in IPS compared with standard vocational rehabilitation (RR 2.07 95% CI 1.82–2.35). The efficacy of IPS was marginally moderated by strong legal protection against dismissals. It was not moderated by regulation of temporary employment, generosity of disability benefits, type of integration policies, GDP, unemployment rate or employment rate for those with low education. Conclusions: The evidence for efficacy of IPS is very strong. The efficacy of IPS can be generalized between countries.