Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives Compulsory mental health care includes compulsory hospitalisation and outpatient commitment with medication treatment without consent. Uncertain evidence of the effects of compulsory care contributes to large geographical variations and a controversy on its use. Some argue that compulsion can rarely be justified and should be reduced to an absolute minimum, while others claim compulsion can more frequently be justified. The limited evidence base has contributed to variations in care that raise issues about the quality/appropriateness of care as well as ethical concerns. To address the question whether compulsory mental health care results in superior, worse or equivalent outcomes for patients, this project will utilise registry‐based longitudinal data to examine the effect of compulsory inpatient and outpatient care on multiple outcomes, including suicide and overall mortality; emergency care/injuries; crime and victimisation; and participation in the labour force and welfare dependency. Methods By using the natural variation in health providers' preference for compulsory care as a source of quasi‐randomisation we will estimate causal effects of compulsory care on short‐ and long‐term trajectories. Conclusions This project will provide valuable insights for service providers and policy makers in facilitating high quality clinical care pathways for a high risk population group.

There are now hundreds of systematic reviews on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) of variable quality. To help navigate this literature, we have reviewed systematic reviews on any topic on ADHD. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science and performed quality assessment according to the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis. A total of 231 systematic reviews and meta-analyses met the eligibility criteria. The prevalence of ADHD was 7.2% for children and adolescents and 2.5% for adults, though with major uncertainty due to methodological variation in the existing literature. There is evidence for both biological and social risk factors for ADHD, but this evidence is mostly correlational rather than causal due to confounding and reverse causality. There is strong evidence for the efficacy of pharmacological treatment on symptom reduction in the short-term, particularly for stimulants. However, there is limited evidence for the efficacy of pharmacotherapy in mitigating adverse life trajectories such as educational attainment, employment, substance abuse, injuries, suicides, crime, and comorbid mental and somatic conditions. Pharmacotherapy is linked with side effects like disturbed sleep, reduced appetite, and increased blood pressure, but less is known about potential adverse effects after long-term use. Evidence of the efficacy of nonpharmacological treatments is mixed. Despite hundreds of systematic reviews on ADHD, key questions are still unanswered. Evidence gaps remain as to a more accurate prevalence of ADHD, whether documented risk factors are causal, the efficacy of nonpharmacological treatments on any outcomes, and pharmacotherapy in mitigating the adverse outcomes associated with ADHD.

BackgroundPsychiatric comorbidity is frequent among persons with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Whether pharmacological treatment of ADHD influences the incidence of psychiatric comorbidity is uncertain.ObjectiveTo investigate associations and causal relations between pharmacological treatment of ADHD and incidence of subsequent comorbid psychiatric diagnoses.MethodsWe employed registry data covering all individuals aged 5–18 years in Norway who were diagnosed with ADHD during 2009–2011 (n=8051), followed until 2020. We used linear probability models (LPM) and instrumental variable (IV) analyses to examine associations and causal effects, respectively, between pharmacological treatment and subsequent comorbidity.FindingsFrom time of ADHD diagnosis to 9 years of follow-up, 63% of patients were registered with comorbid psychiatric disorders. For males, LPM showed associations between ADHD medication and several incident comorbidities, but strength and direction of associations and consistency over time varied. For females, no associations were statistically significant. IV analyses for selected categories isolating effects among patients ‘on the margin of treatment’ showed a protective effect for a category of stress-related disorders in females and for tic disorders in males for the first 2 and 3 years of pharmacological treatment, respectively.ConclusionsOverall, LPM and IV analyses did not provide consistent or credible support for long-term effects of pharmacological treatment on later psychiatric comorbidity. However, IV results suggest that for patients on the margin of treatment, pharmacological treatment may initially reduce the incidence of certain categories of comorbid disorders.Clinical implicationsClinicians working with persons with ADHD should monitor the effects of ADHD medication on later psychiatric comorbidity.Trial registration number ISRCTN11891971.

IntroductionAttention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is among the most common mental disorders in children and adolescents, and it is a strong risk factor for several adverse psychosocial outcomes over the lifespan. There are large between-country and within-country variations in diagnosis and medication rates. Due to ethical and practical considerations, a few studies have examined the effects of receiving a diagnosis, and there is a lack of research on effects of medication on long-term outcomes.Our project has four aims organised in four work packages: (WP1) To examine the prognosis of ADHD (with and without medication) compared with patients with other psychiatric diagnoses, patients in contact with public sector child and adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics (without diagnosis) and the general population; (WP2) Examine within-country variation in ADHD diagnoses and medication rates by clinics’ catchment area; and(WP3) Identify causal effects of being diagnosed with ADHD and (WP4) ADHD medication on long-term outcomes.Method and analysisOur project links several nationwide Norwegian registries. The patient sample is all persons aged 5–18 years that were in contact with public sector child and adolescent psychiatric outpatient clinics in 2009–2011. Our comparative analysis of prognosis will be based on survival analysis and mixed-effects models. Our analysis of variation will apply mixed-effects models and generalised linear models. We have two identification strategies for the effect of being diagnosed with ADHD and of receiving medication on long-term outcomes. Both strategies rely on using preference-based instrumental variables, which in our project are based on provider preferences for ADHD diagnosis and medication.Ethics and disseminationThe project is approved by the Regional Ethics Committee, Norway (REC number 2017/2150/REC south-east D). All papers will be published in open-access journals and results will be presented in national and international conferences.Trial registration numbersISRCTN11573246 and ISRCTN11891971.

Instrumental variables (IV) is a central strategy for identifying causal effects in absence of randomized experiments. Clinicians and epidemiologists may find the intuition of IV easy to grasp by comparison to randomized experiments. Randomization is an ideal IV because treatment is assigned randomly, and hence unaffected by everything else. IV methods in nonexperimental settings mimic a randomized experiment by using a source of “as good as” random variation in treatment instead. The main challenge with IV designs is to find IVs that are as good as randomization. Discovering potential IVs require substantive knowledge and an understanding of design principles. Moreover, IV methods recover causal effects for a subset of the population who take treatment when induced by the IV. Sometimes these estimates are informative, other times their relevance is questionable. We provide an introduction to IV methods in clinical epidemiology. First, we introduce the main principles and assumptions. Second, we present practical examples based on Mendelian randomization and provider preference and refer to other common IVs in health. Third, practical steps in IV analysis are presented. Fourth, the promise and perils of IV methods are discussed. Finally, we suggest further readings.

Preference-based instrumental variables (PP IV) designs can identify causal effects when patients receive treatment due to variation in providers’ treatment preference. We offer a systematic review and methodological assessment of PP IV applications in health research. We included studies that applied PP IV for evaluation of any treatment in any population in health research (PROSPERO: CRD42020165014). We searched within four databases (Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink) and four journals (including full-text and title and abstract sources) between January 1, 1998, and March 5, 2020. We extracted data on areas of applications and methodology, including assumptions using Swanson and Hernan's (2013) guideline. We included 185 of 1087 identified studies. The use of PP IV has increased, being predominantly used for treatment effects in cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mental health. The most common PP IV was treatment variation at the facility-level, followed by physician- and regional-level. Only 12 percent of applications report the four main assumptions for PP IV. Selection on treatment may be a potential issue in 46 percent of studies. The assumptions of PP IV are not sufficiently reported in existing work. PP IV-studies should use reporting guidelines.

Rates of ADHD diagnosis vary across regions in many countries. However, no prior study has investigated how much within-country geographic variation in ADHD diagnoses is explained by variation in ADHD symptom levels. We examine whether ADHD symptom levels explain variation in ADHD diagnoses among children and adolescents using nationwide survey and register data in Norway. Geographical variation in incidence of ADHD diagnosis was measured using Norwegian registry data from the child and adolescent mental health services for 2011–2016. Geographical variation in ADHD symptom levels in clinics’ catchment areas was measured using data from the Norwegian mother, father and child cohort study for 2011–2016 (n = 39,850). Cross-sectional associations between ADHD symptom levels and the incidence of ADHD diagnoses were assessed with fractional response models. Geographical variation in ADHD diagnosis rates is much larger than what can be explained by geographical variation in ADHD symptoms levels. Treatment in the Norwegian child and adolescent mental health services is free, universally available upon referral, and practically without competition from the private sector. Factors beyond health care access and unequal symptom levels seem responsible for the geographical variation in ADHD diagnosis.

Prevalence and medication rates of ADHD vary geographically, both between and within countries. No absolute cutoff exists between ADHD and normal behavior, making clinician attitudes (leading to local practice cultures) a potential explanation for the observed variation in diagnosis and medication rates. The objective of this study was to describe variation in attitudes toward diagnosis and medication of ADHD among clinicians working in child and adolescent mental health services (CAMHS). We hypothesized that attitudes would vary along a spectrum from “restrictive” to “liberal”. We also explored whether differences in attitudes between clinicians were related to professional background and workplace (clinic). A survey in the form of a web-based questionnaire was developed. All CAMHS outpatient clinics in Norway were invited. Potential respondents were all clinicians involved in diagnosing and treating children and adolescents with ADHD. To investigate the existence of attitudes toward diagnosis and medication as latent constructs, we applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We further examined how much of variance in attitudes could be ascribed to profession and clinics by estimating intraclass correlation coefficients. In total, 674 respondents representing 77 (88%) of the clinics participated. We confirmed variation in attitudes with average responses leaning toward the “restrictive” end of the spectrum. CFA supported “attitude toward diagnosis” and “attitude toward medication” as separate, and moderately correlated (r = 0.4) latent variables, representing a scale from restrictive to liberal. Professional background and workplace explained only a small part of variance in these attitudes.

ADHD is associated with an increased risk of injury. Causal evidence for effects of pharmacological treatment on injuries is scarce. We estimated effects of ADHD medication on injuries using variation in provider preference as an instrumental variable (IV). Using Norwegian registry data, we followed 8051 patients who were diagnosed with ADHD aged 5 to 18 between 2009 and 2011 and recorded their ADHD medication and injuries treated in emergency rooms and emergency wards up to 4 years after diagnosis. Persons with ADHD had an increased risk of injuries compared to the general population (RR 1.35; 95% CI: 1.30–1.39), with higher risk in females (RR 1.47; 95% CI: 1.38–1.56) than males (RR 1.23; 95% CI: 1.18–1.28). The between-clinics variation in provider preference for ADHD medication was large and had a considerable impact on patients’ treatment status. There was no causal evidence for protective effects of pharmacological treatment on injuries overall for young individuals with ADHD characterized by milder or atypical symptoms. However, there was an apparent effect of pharmacological treatment over time on the risk of injuries treated at emergency wards in this patient group.

Objective: Individual placement and support (IPS) has shown consistently better outcomes on competitive employment for patients with severe mental illness than traditional vocational rehabilitation. The evidence for efficacy originates from few countries, and generalization to different countries has been questioned. This has delayed implementation of IPS and led to requests for country-specific RCTs. This meta-analysis examines if evidence for IPS efficacy can be generalized between rather different countries. Methods: A systematic search was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines to identify RCTs. Overall efficacy was established by meta-analysis. The generalizability of IPS efficacy between countries was analysed by random-effects meta-regression, employing country- and date-specific contextual data obtained from the OECD and the World Bank. Results: The systematic review identified 27 RCTs. Employment rates are more than doubled in IPS compared with standard vocational rehabilitation (RR 2.07 95% CI 1.82–2.35). The efficacy of IPS was marginally moderated by strong legal protection against dismissals. It was not moderated by regulation of temporary employment, generosity of disability benefits, type of integration policies, GDP, unemployment rate or employment rate for those with low education. Conclusions: The evidence for efficacy of IPS is very strong. The efficacy of IPS can be generalized between countries.