Treatment Receipt and Outcomes from a Clinic Employing the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment Guideline of the Children's Medication Algorithm Project
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Little is known about the pattern of service receipt and outcomes from clinics implementing best practice guidelines in child mental health. This study aimed to determine these variables for a clinic that implemented an attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) treatment guideline proposed by the Children's Medication Algorithm Project (CMAP). METHODS: Secondary analyses of medical record extracts were conducted for children who received treatment from 2007 to 2012 in a specialty clinic linked to a public children's hospital in Canada. Patterns of medication selection and dosing were compared with CMAP guidelines. Outcomes were based on parent and teacher ratings on the ADHD portion of the Multimodal Treatment Study for ADHD (MTA)- Swanson, Nolan, and Pelham, Version IV (SNAP-IV). RESULTS: Data were available for 132 children (ages 5-14), 81.8% of whom had no previous ADHD medication exposure, and 97.0% of whom had started at least one medication. Methylphenidate was used first for 59.8% of children, whereas 33.3% started with an amphetamine product. Of the 47.0% of children who progressed to a second medication trial, 88.7% tried a stimulant from a second class. In total, 19.7% tried atomoxetine, which was typically used as a third stage choice (i.e., after two different stimulant exposures). Stage four to six medications were rarely used, rather stimulants were retried after atomoxetine and/or medication combinations were tried. Symptomatic remission at the end of treatment was achieved by 70.4% and 82.4%, according to parents and teachers respectively, for those with outcome data and who completed treatment. Outcomes for those further along the treatment algorithm were similar to discharges at the beginning of the algorithm. CONCLUSIONS: The high rates of symptomatic remission observed within this clinical service may be a function of adherence to CMAP recommendations. However, the lack of a comparison group or experimental design prevents determination of causality. Additional investigations of the impacts of implementing evidence-based guidelines are critically needed, with proposed benchmarks to inform outcome evaluations.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».