Rae Thomas

Prevalence of attention-deficit/ Hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are widely debated, fueled by variations in prevalence estimates across countries, time, and broadening diagnostic criteria. We conducted a meta-analysis to: establish a benchmark pooled prevalence for ADHD; examine whether estimates have increased with publication of different editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); and explore the effect of study features on prevalence. METHODS: Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science were searched for studies with point prevalence estimates of ADHD. We included studies of children that used the diagnostic criteria from DSM-III, DSM-III-R and DSM-IV in any language. Data were extracted on sampling procedure, sample characteristics, assessors, measures, and whether full or partial criteria were met. RESULTS: The 175 eligible studies included 179 ADHD prevalence estimates with an overall pooled estimate of 7.2% (95% confidence interval: 6.7 to 7.8), and no statistically significant difference between DSM editions. In multivariable analyses, prevalence estimates for ADHD were lower when using the revised third edition of the DSM compared with the fourth edition (P = .03) and when studies were conducted in Europe compared with North America (P = .04). Few studies used population sampling with random selection. Most were from single towns or regions, thus limiting generalizability. CONCLUSIONS: Our review provides a benchmark prevalence estimate for ADHD. If population estimates of ADHD diagnoses exceed our estimate, then overdiagnosis may have occurred for some children. If fewer, then underdiagnosis may have occurred.

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: are we helping or harming?

#### Summary box Prevalence and prescribing rates for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have risen steeply over the past decade, partly in response to concerns about underdiagnosis and undertreatment.1 2 But although clinicians have become better …

Parent–Child Interaction Therapy an Evidence-Based Treatment for Child Maltreatment

It is common practice to augment efficacious treatment protocols for special populations (Durlak & DuPre, 2008), but this is often done before establishing that standard services are not appropriate. In this randomized controlled trial with families at risk or with a history of maltreatment (N = 151), we investigated the effectiveness of standard 12-session Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT). This is in contrast to other PCIT studies with similar parents, which have allowed for longer and sometimes variable treatment length and with modifications to PCIT protocol. After treatment and compared to Waitlist, mothers reported fewer child externalizing and internalizing behaviors, decreased stress, and were observed to have more positive verbalizations and maternal sensitivity. These outcomes were equivalent or better than outcomes of our previous PCIT trial with high-risk families (Thomas & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2011) when treatment length was variable and often longer. These findings support standard protocol PCIT as an efficacious intervention for families in the child welfare system.

A community jury on PSA screening: What do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening - A qualitative analysis

Objective Cancer screening policies and programmes should take account of public values and concerns. This study sought to determine the priorities, values and concerns of men who were ‘fully informed’ about the benefits and harms of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening; and empirically examine the value of a community jury in eliciting public values on PSA screening. Setting Community jury was convened on the Gold Coast, Queensland (Australia) to consider PSA screening benefits and harms, and whether government campaigns on PSA screening should be conducted. Participants 27 men (volunteers) aged 50–70 with no personal history of prostate cancer and willing to attend jury 6–7 April 2013: 12 were randomly allocated to jury (11 attended). Outcome measures A qualitative analysis was conducted of the jury deliberations (audio-recorded and transcribed) to elicit the jurys views and recommendations. A survey determined the impact of the jury process on participants’ individual testing decisions compared with control group. Results The jury concluded governments should not invest in programmes focused on PSA screening directed at the public because the PSA test did not offer sufficient reassurance or benefit and could raise unnecessary alarm. It recommended an alternative programme to support general practitioners to provide patients with better quality and more consistent information about PSA screening. After the jury, participants were less likely to be tested in the future compared with the controls, but around half said they would still consider doing so. Conclusions The jurys unanimous verdict about government programmes was notable in the light of their divergent views on whether or not they would be screened themselves in the future. Community juries provide valuable insights into the priorities and concerns of men weighing up the benefits and harms of PSA screening. It will be important to assess the degree to which the findings are generalisable to other settings.

Deliberative democracy and cancer screening consent: a randomised control trial of the effect of a community jury on men's knowledge about and intentions to participate in PSA screening

Objective Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening is controversial. A community jury allows presentation of complex information and may clarify how participants view screening after being well-informed. We examined whether participating in a community jury had an effect on mens knowledge about and their intention to participate in PSA screening. Design Random allocation to either a 2-day community jury or a control group, with preassessment, postassessment and 3-month follow-up assessment. Setting Participants from the Gold Coast (Australia) recruited via radio, newspaper and community meetings. Participants Twenty-six men aged 50–70 years with no previous diagnosis of prostate cancer. Intervention The control group (n=14) received factsheets on PSA screening. Community jury participants (n=12) received the same factsheets and further information about screening for prostate cancer. In addition, three experts presented information on PSA screening: a neutral scientific advisor provided background information, one expert emphasised the potential benefits of screening and another expert emphasised the potential harms. Participants discussed information, asked questions to the experts and deliberated on personal and policy decisions. Main outcome and measures Our primary outcome was change in individual intention to have a PSA screening test. We also assessed knowledge about screening for prostate cancer. Results Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat. Immediately after the jury, the community jury group had less intention-to-screen for prostate cancer than men in the control group (effect size=−0.6 SD, p=0.05). This was sustained at 3-month follow-up. Community jury men also correctly identified PSA test accuracy and considered themselves more informed (effect size=1.2 SD, p<0.001). Conclusions Evidence-informed deliberation of the harms and benefits of PSA screening effects mens individual choice to be screened for prostate cancer. Community juries may be a valid method for eliciting target group input to policy decisions. Trial registration number Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12612001079831).

What should happen before asymptomatic men decide whether or not to have a PSA test?A report on three community juries

Objectives: To elicit the views of well informed community members on the ethical obligations of general practitioners regarding prostate‐specific antigen (PSA) testing, and what should be required before a man undergoes a PSA test.

Anticipated Coping With Interpersonal Stressors Links With the Emotional Reactions of Sadness, Anger, and Fear

The same stressor can evoke different emotions across individuals, and emotions can prompt certain coping responses. Responding to four videotaped interpersonal stressors, adolescents (N = 230, X ¯ a g e = 10 years) reported their sadness, fear and anger, and 12 coping strategies. After identifying emotion patterns using cluster analysis, associations with coping were examined. Intensity of emotion, and emotion and stressor type were associated with coping. Adolescents with intense emotions (i.e., highly sad, afraid, and angry) anticipated using more of most coping responses, whereas diffuse but moderate intensity emotion was associated with more active coping relative to other strategies. Anger was associated with less passive and more opposition coping. However, the expected coping clusters and patterns for fear and sadness were not found; no cluster of adolescents was intensely fearful or sad only. Support seeking and opposition were more common for peer-related stress, and active withdrawal was more common for parent-related stress.

CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries – Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996–2015

Opportunities for community members to actively participate in policy development are increasing. Community/citizens juries (CJs) are a deliberative democratic process aimed to illicit informed community perspectives on difficult topics. But how comprehensive these processes are reported in peer‐reviewed literature is unknown. Adequate reporting of methodology enables others to judge process quality, compare outcomes, facilitate critical reflection and potentially repeat a process. We aimed to identify important elements for reporting CJs, to develop an initial checklist and to review published health and health policy CJs to examine reporting standards.

Parent-child interaction therapy: A manualized intervention for the therapeutic child welfare sector

Children who have experienced maltreatment can often display behavioral difficulties; their parents may lack disciplinary knowledge, be less sensitive to their children, and engage in coercive parenting practices. Parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) is a well-known, evidence-based treatment (EBT) for child behavior problems and within the last decade has garnered significant evidence to suggest its utility for parents engaged in child maltreatment. This article uses a case example to describe PCIT treatment phases and PCIT research within the child maltreatment sector is synthesized with particular focus on treatment modifications. Successful augmentations and modifications include a motivation component, keeping therapeutic time shorter rather than longer, and whether to incorporate individual counseling and in-home PCIT are also considered. Practical strategies from both a therapeutic and research experience are discussed.

An evaluation of parent-child interaction therapy with and without motivational enhancement to reduce attrition

Although many interventions for child externalizing behavior report promising outcomes for families, high attrition prior to program completion remains a problem. Many programs report dropout rates of 50% or higher. In this trial we sought to reduce attrition and improve outcomes by augmenting a well-known evidence-based intervention, Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT), with a 3-session individual motivational enhancement component. Participants were 192 Australian caregivers (91.7% female; Mage = 34.4 years) and their children (33.3% female; Mage = 4.4 years). Families (51% referred from child welfare or health services for risk of maltreatment) were assigned to PCIT or a supported waitlist, with families assigned to PCIT receiving either standard PCIT (S/PCIT) or motivation-enhanced PCIT (M/PCIT), depending on their time of entry to the study. Waitlist families received phone calls every week for 12 weeks. Parents in M/PCIT reported more readiness to change their behavior from preassessment to after the motivation sessions. Also, parents who reported high, rather than low, motivation at preassessment did have a lower attrition rate, and there was some evidence that enhancing motivation was protective of premature attrition to the extent that caregivers achieved a high degree of change in motivation. Yet comparison of attrition rates and survival analyses revealed no difference between M/PCIT and S/PCIT in retention rate. Finally, there were greater reductions in externalizing and internalizing child behavior problems and parental stress among families in S/PCIT and M/PCIT compared with waitlist, and there was generally no significant difference between the two treatment conditions.