Gemma M. Walker

The clinical utility of the continuous performance test and objective measures of activity for diagnosing and monitoring ADHD in children: a systematic review.

Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is typically diagnosed using clinical observation and subjective informant reports. Once children commence ADHD medication, robust monitoring is required to detect partial or non-responses. The extent to which neuropsychological continuous performance tests (CPTs) and objective measures of activity can clinically aid the assessment and titration process in ADHD is not fully understood. This review describes the current evidence base for the use of CPTs and objectively measured activity to support the diagnostic procedure and medication management for children with ADHD. Four databases (PsycINFO, Medline, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), and PsycARTICLES) were systematically searched to understand the current evidence base for (1) the use of CPTs to aid clinical assessment of ADHD; (2) the use of CPTs to aid medication management; and (3) the clinical utility of objective measures of activity in ADHD. Sixty relevant articles were identified. The search revealed six commercially available CPTs that had been reported on for their clinical use. There were mixed findings with regard to the use of CPTs to assess and manage medication, with contrasting evidence on their ability to support clinical decision-making. There was a strong evidence base for the use of objective measures of activity to aid ADHD/non-ADHD group differentiation, which appears sensitive to medication effects and would also benefit from further research on their clinical utility. The findings suggest that combining CPTs and an objective measure of activity may be particularly useful as a clinical tool and worthy of further pursuit.

Protocol investigating the clinical utility of an objective measure of activity and attention (QbTest) on diagnostic and treatment decision-making in children and young people with ADHD—‘Assessing QbTest Utility in ADHD’ (AQUA): a randomised controlled trial

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 clinicians 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. Ethics and dissemination The findings from the study will inform commissioners, clinicians and managers about the feasibility, acceptability, clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of incorporating QbTest into routine diagnostic assessment of young people with ADHD. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. The study has received ethical approval. Trial registration number NCT02209116.

Cognitive–behaviour therapy for health anxiety in medical patients (CHAMP): a randomised controlled trial with outcomes to 5 years

BACKGROUND Health anxiety is an under-recognised but frequent cause of distress that is potentially treatable, but there are few studies in secondary care. OBJECTIVE To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a modified form of cognitive-behaviour therapy (CBT) for health anxiety (CBT-HA) compared with standard care in medical outpatients. DESIGN Randomised controlled trial. SETTING Five general hospitals in London, Middlesex and Nottinghamshire. PARTICIPANTS A total of 444 patients aged 16-75 years seen in cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, neurology and respiratory medicine clinics who scored ≥ 20 points on the Health Anxiety Inventory (HAI) and satisfied diagnostic requirements for hypochondriasis. Those with current psychiatric disorders were excluded, but those with concurrent medical illnesses were not. INTERVENTIONS Cognitive-behaviour therapy for health anxiety - between 4 and 10 1-hour sessions of CBT-HA from a health professional or psychologist trained in the treatment. Standard care was normal practice in primary and secondary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary - researchers masked to allocation assessed patients at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 24 months and 5 years. The primary outcome was change in the HAI score between baseline and 12 months. Main secondary outcomes - costs of care in the two groups after 24 and 60 months, change in health anxiety (HAI), generalised anxiety and depression [Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)] scores, social functioning using the Social Functioning Questionnaire and quality of life using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), at 6, 12, 24 and 60 months, and deaths over 5 years. RESULTS Of the 28,991 patients screened over 21 months, 5769 had HAI scores of ≥ 20 points. Improvement in HAI scores at 3 months was significantly greater in the CBT-HA group (mean number of sessions = 6) than in the standard care, and this was maintained over the 5-year period (overall p < 0.0001), with no loss of efficacy between 2 and 5 years. Differences in the generalised anxiety (p = 0.0018) and depression scores (p = 0.0065) on the HADS were similar in both groups over the 5-year period. Gastroenterology and cardiology patients showed the greatest CBT gains. The outcomes for nurses were superior to those of other therapists. Deaths (n = 24) were similar in both groups; those in standard care died earlier than those in CBT-HA. Patients with mild personality disturbance and higher dependence levels had the best outcome with CBT-HA. Total costs were similar in both groups over the 5-year period (£12,590.58 for CBT-HA; £13,334.94 for standard care). CBT-HA was not cost-effective in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, as measured using the EQ-5D, but was cost-effective in terms of HAI outcomes, and offset the cost of treatment. LIMITATIONS Many eligible patients were not randomised and the population treated may not be representative. CONCLUSIONS CBT-HA is a highly effective treatment for pathological health anxiety with lasting benefit over 5 years. It also improves generalised anxiety and depressive symptoms more than standard care. The presence of personality abnormality is not a bar to successful outcome. CBT-HA may also be cost-effective, but the high costs of concurrent medical illnesses obscure potential savings. This treatment deserves further research in medical settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14565822. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 50. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Study of user experience of an objective test (QbTest) to aid ADHD assessment and medication management: a multi-methods approach

BackgroundThe diagnosis and monitoring of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) typically relies on subjective reports and observations. Objective continuous performance tests (CPTs) have been incorporated into some services to support clinical decision making. However, the feasibility and acceptability of adding such a test into routine practice is unknown. The study aimed to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of adding an objective computerised test to the routine assessment and monitoring of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 10) and families (parents/young people, n = 20) who participated in a randomised controlled trial. Additionally, the same clinicians (n = 10) and families (n = 76) completed a survey assessing their experience of the QbTest. The study took place in child and adolescent mental health and community paediatric clinics across the UK. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed.ResultsInterviewed clinicians and families valued the QbTest for providing an objective, valid assessment of symptoms. The QbTest was noted to facilitate communication between clinicians, families and schools. However, whereas clinicians were more unanimous on the usefulness of the QbTest, survey findings showed that, although the majority of families found the test useful, less than half felt the QbTest helped them understand the clinician’s decision making around diagnosis and medication. The QbTest was seen as a potentially valuable tool to use early in the assessment process to streamline the care pathway. Although clinicians were conscious of the additional costs, these could be offset by reductions in time to diagnosis and the delivery of the test by a Healthcare Assistant.ConclusionsThe findings indicate the QbTest is an acceptable and feasible tool to implement in routine clinical settings. Clinicians should be mindful to discuss the QbTest results with families to enable their understanding and engagement with the process. Further findings from definitive trials are required to understand the cost/benefit; however, the findings from this study support the feasibility and acceptability of integrating QbTest in the ADHD care pathway.Trial registrationThe findings form the implementation component of the Assessing QbTest Utility in ADHD (AQUA) Trial which is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN11727351, retrospectively registered 04 July 2016) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02209116, registered 04 August 2014).

The Falls In Care Home study: a feasibility randomized controlled trial of the use of a risk assessment and decision support tool to prevent falls in care homes

Objective: To explore the feasibility of implementing and evaluating the Guide to Action Care Home fall prevention intervention. Design: Two-centre, cluster feasibility randomized controlled trial and process evaluation. Setting: Purposive sample of six diverse old age/learning disability, long stay care homes in Nottinghamshire, UK. Subjects: Residents aged over 50 years, who had fallen at least once in the past year, not bed-bound, hoist-dependent or terminally ill. Interventions: Intervention homes (n = 3) received Guide to Action Care Home fall prevention intervention training and support. Control homes (n = 3) received usual care. Outcomes: Recruitment, attrition, baseline and six-month outcome completion, contamination and intervention fidelity, compliance, tolerability, acceptance and impact. Results: A total of 81 of 145 (56%) care homes expressed participatory interest. Six of 22 letter respondent homes (27%) participated. The expected resident recruitment target was achieved by 76% (52/68). Ten (19%) residents did not complete follow-up (seven died, three moved). In intervention homes 36/114 (32%) staff attended training. Two of three (75%) care homes received protocol compliant training. Staff valued the training, but advised greater management involvement to improve intervention implementation. Fall risks were assessed, actioned and recorded in care records. Of 115 recorded falls, 533/570 (93%) of details were complete. Six-month resident fall rates were 1.9 and 4.0 per year for intervention and control homes, respectively. Conclusions: The Guide to Action Care Home is implementable under trial conditions. Recruitment and follow-up rates indicate that a definitive trial can be completed. Falls (primary outcome) can be ascertained reliably from care records.