Treatment Receipt and Outcomes from a Clinic Employing the Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Treatment Guideline of the Children's Medication Algorithm Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".