Cited by 16Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderClinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation Science

Interventions to promote the evidence-based care of children with ADHD in primary-care settings

Langberg, Joshua M, Brinkman, William B, Lichtenstein, Philip K, Epstein, Jeffery N·2009·Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics

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

Crossref · 10.1586/ern.09.5

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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].”
  • 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.”

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
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