Interventions to promote the evidence-based care of children with ADHD in primary-care settings
Abstract
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a commonly occurring behavioral disorder among children. Community-based physicians are often the primary providers of services for children with ADHD. A set of consensus guidelines has been published by the American Academy of Pediatrics that provides best-practice diagnostic procedures for primary-care physicians. These recommendations emphasize the importance of using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition criteria as the basis for making an ADHD diagnosis and conducting systematic follow-up, including the collection of parent and teacher ratings scales to quantitatively assess response to treatment. Although these recommendations have been widely disseminated and their adoption actively promoted, guideline adherence, in general, is known to be poor. Two types of intervention models, ancillary service and office systems modification, have been proposed to promote adoption of evidence-based ADHD practice in primary-care settings. The present article reviews the efficacy of these intervention models, and discusses the cost and sustainability of each model as related to feasibility of intervention dissemination.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The presence of clear incentivisation structures drove adoption, including non-financial incentives such as public recognition and access to training.
“The presence of clear incentivisation structures was found to drive adoption: this included non-financial incentives such as public recognition [59] and access to training [60, 61].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [59]
Competing priorities, lack of motivation, and low awareness of the intervention were shown to impede implementation.
“Competing priorities [42, 57, 59, 62, 63, 70, 82], lack of motivation [31, 39, 42, 57, 68, 81] and low awareness of the intervention [31, 35, 38, 39, 43, 44, 68, 75, 80, 81] were shown to impede implementation.”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [59]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 37 · Cited by 16
- Authors
- Langberg, J. M., Brinkman, W. B., Lichtenstein, P. K., & Epstein, J. N.
- Affiliations
- Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
- Venue
- Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2009-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 477-487
- ISSN
- 1473-7175 (ISSN-L)
- 1744-8360
- OpenAlex
- W1965176903
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 0.25
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, children, primary care, evidence-based practice, guideline adherence, American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines, DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, ancillary services, intervention dissemination
- MeSH terms
- Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Humans, Models, Biological, Primary Health Care, Evidence-Based Practice
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review