19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Cognitive-behavioural interventions for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental condition characterised by symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity, along with deficits in executive function, emotional regulation and motivation. The persistence of ADHD in adulthood is a serious clinical problem. ADHD significantly affects social interactions, study and employment performance. Previous studies suggest that cognitive‐behavioural therapy (CBT) could be effective in treating adults with ADHD, especially when combined with pharmacological treatment. CBT aims to change the thoughts and behaviours that reinforce harmful effects of the disorder by teaching people techniques to control the core symptoms. CBT also aims to help people cope with emotions, such as anxiety and depression, and to improve self‐esteem. To assess the effects of cognitive‐behavioural‐based therapy for ADHD in adults. In June 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and three trials registries. We also checked reference lists, handsearched congress abstracts, and contacted experts and researchers in the field. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any form of CBT for adults with ADHD, either as a monotherapy or in conjunction with another treatment, versus one of the following: unspecific control conditions (comprising supportive psychotherapies, no treatment or waiting list) or other specific interventions. We used the standard methodological procedures suggested by Cochrane. We included 14 RCTs (700 participants), 13 of which were conducted in the northern hemisphere and 1 in Australia. Primary outcomes: ADHD symptoms CBT versus unspecific control conditions (supportive psychotherapies, waiting list or no treatment) ‐ CBT versus supportive psychotherapies: CBT was more effective than supportive therapy for improving clinician‐reported ADHD symptoms (1 study, 81 participants; low‐quality evidence) but not for self‐reported ADHD symptoms (SMD −0.16, 95% CI −0.52 to 0.19; 2 studies, 122 participants; low‐quality evidence; small effect size). ‐ CBT versus waiting list: CBT led to a larger benefit in clinician‐reported ADHD symptoms (SMD −1.22, 95% CI −2.03 to −0.41; 2 studies, 126 participants; very low‐quality evidence; large effect size). We also found significant differences in favour of CBT for self‐reported ADHD symptoms (SMD −0.84, 95% CI −1.18 to −0.50; 5 studies, 251 participants; moderate‐quality evidence; large effect size). CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone : CBT with pharmacotherapy was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone for clinician‐reported core symptoms (SMD −0.80, 95% CI −1.31 to −0.30; 2 studies, 65 participants; very low‐quality evidence; large effect size), self‐reported core symptoms (MD −7.42 points, 95% CI −11.63 points to −3.22 points; 2 studies, 66 participants low‐quality evidence) and self‐reported inattention (1 study, 35 participants). CBT versus other interventions that included therapeutic ingredients specifically targeted to ADHD : we found a significant difference in favour of CBT for clinician‐reported ADHD symptoms (SMD −0.58, 95% CI −0.98 to −0.17; 2 studies, 97 participants; low‐quality evidence; moderate effect size) and for self‐reported ADHD symptom severity (SMD −0.44, 95% CI −0.88 to −0.01; 4 studies, 156 participants; low‐quality evidence; small effect size). Secondary outcomes CBT versus unspecific control conditions : we found differences in favour of CBT compared with waiting‐list control for self‐reported depression (SMD −0.36, 95% CI −0.60 to −0.11; 5 studies, 258 participants; small effect size) and for self‐reported anxiety (SMD −0.45, 95% CI −0.71 to −0.19; 4 studies, 239 participants; small effect size). We also observed differences in favour of CBT for self‐reported state anger (1 study, 43 participants) and self‐reported self‐esteem (1 study 43 participants) compared to waiting list. We found no differences between CBT and supportive therapy (1 study, 81 participants) for self‐rated depression, clinician‐rated anxiety or self‐rated self‐esteem. Additionally, there were no differences between CBT and the waiting list for self‐reported trait anger (1 study, 43 participants) or self‐reported quality of life (SMD 0.21, 95% CI −0.29 to 0.71; 2 studies, 64 participants; small effect size). CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone : we found differences in favour of CBT plus pharmacotherapy for the Clinical Global Impression score (MD −0.75 points, 95% CI −1.21 points to −0.30 points; 2 studies, 65 participants), self‐reported depression (MD −6.09 points, 95% CI −9.55 points to −2.63 points; 2 studies, 66 participants) and self‐reported anxiety (SMD −0.58, 95% CI −1.08 to −0.08; 2 studies, 66 participants; moderate effect size). We also observed differences favouring CBT plus pharmacotherapy (1 study, 31 participants) for clinician‐reported depression and clinician‐reported anxiety. CBT versus other specific interventions : we found no differences for any of the secondary outcomes, such as self‐reported depression and anxiety, and findings on self‐reported quality of life varied across different studies. There is low‐quality evidence that cognitive‐behavioural‐based treatments may be beneficial for treating adults with ADHD in the short term. Reductions in core symptoms of ADHD were fairly consistent across the different comparisons: in CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone and in CBT versus waiting list. There is low‐quality evidence that CBT may also improve common secondary disturbances in adults with ADHD, such as depression and anxiety. However, the paucity of long‐term follow‐up data, the heterogeneous nature of the measured outcomes, and the limited geographical location (northern hemisphere and Australia) limit the generalisability of the results. None of the included studies reported severe adverse events, but five participants receiving different modalities of CBT described some type of adverse event, such as distress and anxiety. Background People with ADHD have difficulty paying attention, concentrating, dealing with hyperactivity (e.g. waiting in queues) and acting without thinking (i.e. impulsivity). In adults, ADHD significantly affects social interactions, study and employment performance. Previous studies suggest that cognitive‐behavioural therapy (CBT) could be effective for treating adults with ADHD, especially when combined with pharmacological (i.e. drug) treatment. CBT aims to change the thoughts and behaviours that reinforce the harmful effects of the disorder by teaching people techniques to control the core symptoms. CBT also aims to help people cope with emotions, such as anxiety and depression, and to improve self‐esteem. Review question Does CBT, alone or in combination with pharmacological treatment, reduce the core symptoms of ADHD in adults more than other treatments or no specific treatment? Search dates The evidence is current to June 2017. Study characteristics We found 14 randomised controlled trials (studies in which participants are randomly assigned to different treatment groups) that described the effects of CBT in 700 adults with ADHD, aged between 18 and 65 years. Thirteen trials took place in the northern hemisphere and one in Australia. Of the included studies, three compared CBT versus other specific interventions and seven versus unspecific control conditions (unspecific supportive therapy, waiting list or no treatment). Additionally, two compared CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone. One trial compared CBT to two control groups, one of which was given other specific non‐pharmacological treatment and one of which was a no‐treatment control. Quality of the evidence Because of imprecision (i.e. inaccurate results), inconsistency (i.e. results differ across trials) and methodological limitations, we considered the quality of the evidence of the included studies to range from very low to moderate. Key results The findings suggest that CBT might improve the core symptoms of ADHD, reducing inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. When combined with pharmacotherapy, there was evidence of an improvement in global functioning (i.e. a person's overall level of functioning in life) and a reduction in depression and anxiety compared to that seen with pharmacotherapy alone. None of the included studies reported severe adverse events. However, five participants described some type of adverse event, such as distress and anxiety.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          ADHD prevalence estimates across three decades: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

          Previous studies have identified significant variability in attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) prevalence estimates worldwide, largely explained by methodological procedures. However, increasing rates of ADHD diagnosis and treatment throughout the past few decades have fuelled concerns about whether the true prevalence of the disorder has increased over time. We updated the two most comprehensive systematic reviews on ADHD prevalence available in the literature. Meta-regression analyses were conducted to test the effect of year of study in the context of both methodological variables that determined variability in ADHD prevalence (diagnostic criteria, impairment criterion and source of information), and the geographical location of studies. We identified 154 original studies and included 135 in the multivariate analysis. Methodological procedures investigated were significantly associated with heterogeneity of studies. Geographical location and year of study were not associated with variability in ADHD prevalence estimates. Confirming previous findings, variability in ADHD prevalence estimates is mostly explained by methodological characteristics of the studies. In the past three decades, there has been no evidence to suggest an increase in the number of children in the community who meet criteria for ADHD when standardized diagnostic procedures are followed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Prevalence and correlates of adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: meta-analysis.

            In spite of the growing literature about adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), relatively little is known about the prevalence and correlates of this disorder. To estimate the prevalence of adult ADHD and to identify its demographic correlates using meta-regression analysis. We used the MEDLINE, PsycLit and EMBASE databases as well as hand-searching to find relevant publications. The pooled prevalence of adult ADHD was 2.5% (95% CI 2.1-3.1). Gender and mean age, interacting with each other, were significantly related to prevalence of ADHD. Meta-regression analysis indicated that the proportion of participants with ADHD decreased with age when men and women were equally represented in the sample. Prevalence of ADHD in adults declines with age in the general population. We think, however, that the unclear validity of DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for this condition can lead to reduced prevalence rates by underestimation of the prevalence of adult ADHD.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations I: Critical appraisal of existing approaches The GRADE Working Group

              Background A number of approaches have been used to grade levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. The use of many different approaches detracts from one of the main reasons for having explicit approaches: to concisely characterise and communicate this information so that it can easily be understood and thereby help people make well-informed decisions. Our objective was to critically appraise six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations as a basis for agreeing on characteristics of a common, sensible approach to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations. Methods Six prominent systems for grading levels of evidence and strength of recommendations were selected and someone familiar with each system prepared a description of each of these. Twelve assessors independently evaluated each system based on twelve criteria to assess the sensibility of the different approaches. Systems used by 51 organisations were compared with these six approaches. Results There was poor agreement about the sensibility of the six systems. Only one of the systems was suitable for all four types of questions we considered (effectiveness, harm, diagnosis and prognosis). None of the systems was considered usable for all of the target groups we considered (professionals, patients and policy makers). The raters found low reproducibility of judgements made using all six systems. Systems used by 51 organisations that sponsor clinical practice guidelines included a number of minor variations of the six systems that we critically appraised. Conclusions All of the currently used approaches to grading levels of evidence and the strength of recommendations have important shortcomings.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
                Wiley
                14651858
                March 23 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute of Cognitive and Translational Neuroscience (INCyT), INECO Foundation, Favaloro University; Laboratory of Psychopathology Research; Pacheco de Melo 1854/60 Buenos Aires Capital Federal Argentina C1078AAI
                [2 ]Institute for Clinical Effectiveness and Health Policy (IECS-CONICET); Argentine Cochrane Centre; Dr. Emilio Ravignani 2024 Buenos Aires Capital Federal Argentina C1414CPV
                [3 ]Hospital Italiano Buenos Aires; Neurology Department; Gascon 450 Buenos Aires Buenos Aires Argentina 1411
                Article
                10.1002/14651858.CD010840.pub2
                6494390
                29566425
                ac65233c-5688-447f-8386-b8556c26c37e
                © 2018
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article