Treatments for ADHD in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Effective treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is essential to improving youth outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review provides an overview of the available treatment options. DATA SOURCES: We identified controlled treatment evaluations in 12 databases published from 1980 to June 2023; treatments were not restricted by intervention content. STUDY SELECTION: Studies in children and adolescents with clinically diagnosed ADHD, reporting patient health and psychosocial outcomes, were eligible. Publications were screened by trained reviewers, supported by machine learning. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted and critically appraised by 1 reviewer and checked by a methodologist. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Strength of evidence and applicability assessments followed Evidence-based Practice Center standards. RESULTS: In total, 312 studies reported in 540 publications were included. We grouped evidence for medication, psychosocial interventions, parent support, nutrition and supplements, neurofeedback, neurostimulation, physical exercise, complementary medicine, school interventions, and provider approaches. Several treatments improved ADHD symptoms. Medications had the strongest evidence base for improving outcomes, including disruptive behaviors and broadband measures, but were associated with adverse events. LIMITATIONS: We found limited evidence of studies comparing alternative treatments directly and indirect analyses identified few systematic differences across stimulants and nonstimulants. Identified combination of medication with youth-directed psychosocial interventions did not systematically produce better results than monotherapy, though few combinations have been evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: A growing number of treatments are available that improve ADHD symptoms and other outcomes, in particular for school-aged youth. Medication therapies remain important treatment options but are associated with adverse events.

Tools for the Diagnosis of ADHD in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Correct diagnosis is essential for the appropriate clinical management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review provides an overview of the available diagnostic tools. DATA SOURCES: We identified diagnostic accuracy studies in 12 databases published from 1980 through June 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Any ADHD tool evaluation for the diagnosis of ADHD, requiring a reference standard of a clinical diagnosis by a mental health specialist. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted and critically appraised by 1 reviewer and checked by a methodologist. Strength of evidence and applicability assessments followed Evidence-based Practice Center standards. RESULTS: In total, 231 studies met eligibility criteria. Studies evaluated parental ratings, teacher ratings, youth self-reports, clinician tools, neuropsychological tests, biospecimen, EEG, and neuroimaging. Multiple tools showed promising diagnostic performance, but estimates varied considerably across studies, with a generally low strength of evidence. Performance depended on whether ADHD youth were being differentiated from neurotypically developing children or from clinically referred children. LIMITATIONS: Studies used different components of available tools and did not report sufficient data for meta-analytic models. CONCLUSIONS: A valid and reliable diagnosis of ADHD requires the judgment of a clinician who is experienced in the evaluation of youth with and without ADHD, along with the aid of standardized rating scales and input from multiple informants across multiple settings, including parents, teachers, and youth themselves.

Multiple chemical sensitivity scoping review protocol: overview of research and MCS construct.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) has been characterised by reported adverse responses to environmental exposures of common chemical agents (eg, perfumes, paint, cleaning products and other inhaled or ingested agents) in low doses considered non-toxic for the general population. There is currently no consensus on whether MCS can be established as a distinct disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review of the literature will be guided by five questions: How is MCS defined and which diagnostic criteria have been proposed? What methods are used to report prevalence and incidence estimates of MCS? What are the characteristics of the body of scientific evidence that addresses whether MCS is a distinct disorder or syndrome? What underlying mechanisms for MCS have been proposed in the scientific literature? Which treatment and management approaches for MCS have been evaluated in empirical research studies? We will conduct a comprehensive search in 14 research databases. Citation screening will be supported by machine learning algorithms. Two independent reviewers will assess eligibility of full-text publications against prespecified criteria. Data abstraction will support concise evidence tables. A formal consultation exercise will elicit input regarding the review results and presentation. The existing research evidence will be documented in a user-friendly visualisation in the format of an evidence map. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Determined to be exempt from review (UP-22-00516). Results will be disseminated through a journal manuscript and data will be publicly accessible through an online data repository. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol is registered in Open Science Framework (osf.io/4a3wu).

Systematic review and quantitative and qualitative comparative analysis of interventions to address HIV-related stigma and discrimination.

A strong global commitment exists to eliminate HIV-related stigma and discrimination, and multiple strategies to reduce or eliminate stigma and discrimination have been tried. Using a PICOTS framework and applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, we undertook a systematic review to determine the success of interventions aiming to address internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare, and at the legal or policy level, and to identify their critical success factors. Random effects meta-analyses summarized results wherever possible. We carried out a component analysis to identify and characterize successful interventions. Internalized stigma interventions were diverse: across all studies, we found a reduction of stigma but it was not statistically significant [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.56; confidence interval (CI) 0.31-1.02; 17 studies). For interventions to address stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings, effect estimates varied considerably but most studies showed positive effects (SMD 0.71; CI 0.60-0.84, 8 studies). Boosted regression analyses found that a combined approach comprising education, counseling, community participation, support person, and access to a HIV specialist often yielded success. Studies of efforts to address stigma and discrimination through law and policy documented, mostly qualitatively, the effect of court cases and directives. Across a range of settings and populations, promising interventions have been identified that, through diverse pathways, have positively impacted the types of stigma and discrimination studied. This evidence base must be built upon and brought to scale to help reach global HIV-related targets and, most importantly, improve the health and quality of life of people with HIV.

Frameworks and measures for HIV-related internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare and in laws and policies: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: There is strong global commitment to eliminate HIV-related stigma, and work in this area continues to evolve. Wide variation exists in frameworks and measures used. METHODS: Building on the existing knowledge syntheses, we carried out a systematic review to identify frameworks and measures aiming to understand or assess internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare, and in law and policy. The review addressed two questions: Which conceptual frameworks have been proposed to assess internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination experienced in healthcare settings, and stigma and discrimination entrenched in national laws and policies? Which measures of these different types of stigma and discrimination have been proposed and what are their descriptive properties? Searches, completed on 6 May 2021, cover publications from 2008 onwards. The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021249348), the protocol incorporated stakeholder input, and the data are available in the Systematic Review Data Repository. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Sixty-nine frameworks and 50 measures met the inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal figures and detailed evidence tables summarize these resources. We established a compendium of frameworks and a catalogue of measures of HIV-related stigma and discrimination. Seventeen frameworks and 10 measures addressed at least two of our focus domains, with least attention to stigma and discrimination in law and policy. The lack of common definitions and variability in scope and structure of HIV-related frameworks and measures creates challenges in understanding what is being addressed and measured, both in relation to stigma and efforts to mitigate or reduce its harmful effects. Having comparable data is essential for tracking change over time within and between interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review provides an evidence base of current understandings of HIV-related stigma and discrimination and how further conceptual clarification and increased adaptation of existing tools might help overcome challenges across the HIV care continuum. With people living with HIV at the centre, experts from different stakeholder groups could usefully collaborate to guide a more streamlined approach for the field. This can help to achieve global targets and understand, measure and help mitigate the impact of different types of HIV-related stigma on people's health and quality of life.

Frameworks, measures, and interventions for HIV-related internalised stigma and stigma in healthcare and laws and policies: systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There is strong global commitment to eliminate HIV-related stigma. Wide variation exists in frameworks and measures, and many strategies to prevent, reduce or mitigate stigma have been proposed but critical factors determining success or failure remain elusive. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Building on existing knowledge syntheses, we designed a systematic review to identify frameworks, measures and intervention evaluations aiming to address internalised stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare, and stigma and discrimination at the legal or policy level. The review addresses four key questions (KQ): KQ1: Which conceptual frameworks have been proposed to assess internal stigma, stigma and discrimination experienced in healthcare settings, and stigma and discrimination entrenched in national laws and policies? KQ2: Which measures of stigma have been proposed and what are their descriptive properties? KQ3: Which interventions have been evaluated that aimed to reduce these types of stigma and discrimination or mitigate their adverse effects and what are the effectiveness and unintended consequences? KQ4: What common 'critical factors for success or failure' can be identified across interventions that have been evaluated? We will search PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Universal Human Rights Index, HeinOnline, PAIS, HIV Legal Network, CDSR, Campbell Collaboration, PROSPERO and Open Science Framework. Critical appraisal will assess the source, processes and consensus finding for frameworks; COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments criteria for measures; and risk of bias for interventions. Quality of evidence grading will apply . A gap analysis will provide targeted recommendations for future research. We will establish a compendium of frameworks, a comprehensive catalogue of available measures, and a synthesis of intervention characteristics to advance the science of HIV-related stigma. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021249348.