Support for primary care prescribing for adult ADHD in England: national survey.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder with effective pharmacological treatments that improve symptoms and reduce complications. NICE guidelines recommend primary care practitioners prescribe medication for adult ADHD under shared care agreements with adult mental health services (AMHS). However, provision remains uneven, with some practitioners reporting a lack of support. AIM: This study aimed to describe supportive elements (prescribing, shared care, AMHS availability) of primary care prescribing for adult ADHD medication in England, to inform service improvement and improve access for this underserved population. DESIGN AND SETTING: Three interlinked cross-sectional surveys asked every integrated care board (ICB) in England (Commissioners), and convenience samples of healthcare professionals (HP) and people with lived experience (LE), about elements supporting pharmacological treatment of ADHD in primary care. METHOD: Descriptive analyses used percentages and confidence intervals to summarise responses by stakeholder group. Variations in reported provision and practice were explored and displayed visually using mapping software. RESULTS: Data from 782 respondents (42 Commissioners; 331 HP; 409 LE) revealed differences in reported provision by stakeholder group, including for prescribing (94.6% of HP vs 62.6% of LE). Over 40% of respondents reported extended AMHS waiting times of two years or more. There was some variability by NHS region, for example London had highest rates of HP reported prescribing (100%), and lowest reported extended waiting times (25.0%). CONCLUSION: Elements supporting appropriate shared care prescribing of ADHD medication via primary care are not universally available in England. Co-ordinated approaches are needed to address these gaps.

Primary care provision for young people with ADHD: a multi-perspective qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a highly prevalent neurodevelopmental disorder. UK guidance states that primary care has a vital role in effective ADHD management, including referral, medication prescribing and monitoring, and providing broader mental health and wellbeing support. However, many GPs feel unsupported to provide health care for young people with ADHD. Inadequate health care is associated with rising costs for patients and society. AIM: To investigate the experiences of young people with ADHD accessing primary care in England, from the perspectives of people with lived experience of ADHD and healthcare professionals (HCPs). DESIGN AND SETTING: A qualitative study. Interviews were conducted with HCPs (GPs, practice managers, and a wellbeing worker) and people with lived experience of ADHD (young people aged 16-25 years and their supporters) located in integrated care systems across England. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants at five purposively selected general practices (varying by deprivation, ethnicity, and setting). Questions focused on experiences of accessing/providing health care for ADHD. Reflexive thematic analysis was undertaken within a critical realist framework to understand how provision works in practice and to explore potential improvements. RESULTS: In total, 20 interviews were completed with 11 HCPs and nine people with lived experience. Three themes were generated: a system under stress, incompatibility between ADHD and the healthcare system, and strategies for change in ADHD primary care provision. CONCLUSION: Standardisation of ADHD management in primary care, providing better information and support for HCPs, and advising on reasonable adjustments for people with lived experience could help improve access to effective treatments for young people living with ADHD.

Parent-carer experiences using a peer support network: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Parent-carers of children and young people (CYP) with mental health problems are at greater risk of poor outcomes, such as poor physical and mental health. Peer interventions for parent-carers of CYP with disabilities may improve parent-carer outcomes. This qualitative study investigates parent-carer experiences of using Parental Minds (PM), a multi-component peer support service for parent-carers of CYP with disabilities. METHODS: Twelve current service-users and four staff/volunteers at PM participated in one-to-one semi-structured interviews. All participants were white females, except for one service-user who was male. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of results was used to explore perceived benefits and disadvantages of PM and possible behaviour change mechanisms. RESULTS: Three themes and eight subthemes were identified. Participants identified that internal and external factors influence their self-concept. The identification of themselves as a priority, and empowerment by reassurance and affirmation lead to improved parent-carer self-efficacy and agency to better care for their CYP. Participants described the difficulty of speaking honestly with friends and family about what they experience because it is perceived as different to what "normal" parents experience. From participant accounts, PM enables the construction of a support network and links external services to help manage family circumstances rather than offer curative treatment/intervention. Proactive and immediate advice which is constantly and consistently available was valued by participants. Participants expressed the need for a flexible range of service components which provide holistic support that encompasses both health and social care. CONCLUSIONS: PM was perceived to be beneficial as a multi-component peer support service which increases parenting self-efficacy and empowerment, reduces isolation, improves access to services, and is tailored to individual needs. Parent-carers reported benefits in parenting and wellbeing practices. The development of a refined logic model will inform a future study of the effectiveness of PM on parent-carer outcomes.

Annual Research Review: The impact of Covid-19 on psychopathology in children and young people worldwide: systematic review of studies with pre- and within-pandemic data.

BACKGROUND: The high volume and pace of research has posed challenges to researchers, policymakers and practitioners wanting to understand the overall impact of the pandemic on children and young people's mental health. We aimed to search for and review the evidence from epidemiological studies to answer the question: how has mental health changed in the general population of children and young people? METHODS: Four databases (Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO) were searched in October 2021, with searches updated in February 2022. We aimed to identify studies of children or adolescents with a mean age of 18 years or younger at baseline, that reported change on a validated mental health measure from prepandemic to during the pandemic. Abstracts and full texts were double-screened against inclusion criteria and quality assessed using a risk of bias tool. Studies were narratively synthesised, and meta-analyses were performed where studies were sufficiently similar. RESULTS: 6917 records were identified, and 51 studies included in the review. Only four studies had a rating of high quality. Studies were highly diverse in terms of design, setting, timing in relation to the pandemic, population, length of follow-up and choice of measure. Methodological heterogeneity limited the potential to conduct meta-analyses across studies. Whilst the evidence suggested a slight deterioration on some measures, overall, the findings were mixed, with no clear pattern emerging. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the need for a more harmonised approach to research in this field. Despite the sometimes-inconsistent results of our included studies, the evidence supports existing concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on children's mental health and on services for this group, given that even small changes can have a significant impact on provision at population level. Children and young people must be prioritised in pandemic recovery, and explicitly considered in planning for any future pandemic response.