Using Digital Measurement–Based Care to Address Symptoms of Inattention, Hyperactivity, and Opposition in Youth: Retrospective Analysis of Bend Health

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

Background

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and associated behavioral disorders are highly prevalent in children and adolescents, yet many of them do not receive the care they need. Digital mental health interventions (DMHIs) may address this need by providing accessible and high-quality care. Given the necessity for high levels of caregiver and primary care practitioner involvement in addressing ADHD symptoms and behavioral problems, collaborative care interventions that adopt a whole-family approach may be particularly well suited to reduce symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and opposition in children and adolescents.

Objective

The purpose of this study is to use member (ie, child and adolescent) data from Bend Health, Inc, a collaborative care DMHI that uses a whole-family approach to address child and adolescent mental health concerns, to (1) determine the effects of a collaborative care DMHI on inattention, hyperactivity, and oppositional symptoms in children and adolescents and (2) assess whether the effects of a collaborative care DMHI vary across ADHD subtypes and demographic factors.

Methods

Caregivers of children and adolescents with elevated symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, or opposition assessed their children’s symptom severity approximately every 30 days while participating in Bend Health, Inc. Data from 107 children and adolescents aged 6-17 years who exhibited clinically elevated symptoms at baseline were used to assess symptom severity across monthly assessments (inattention symptom group: n=91, 85.0%; hyperactivity symptom group: n=48, 44.9%; oppositional symptom group: n=70, 65.4%). The majority of the sample exhibited elevated symptoms of at least 2 symptom types at baseline (n=67, 62.6%).

Results

Members received care for up to 5.52 months and attended between 0 and 10 coaching, therapy, or psychiatry sessions through Bend Health, Inc. For those with at least 2 assessments, 71.0% (n=22) showed improvements in inattention symptoms, 60.0% (n=9) showed improvements in hyperactivity symptoms, and 60.0% (n=12) showed improvements in oppositional symptoms. When considering group-level change over time, symptom severity decreased over the course of treatment with Bend Health, Inc, for inattention (average decrease=3.51 points, P=.001) and hyperactivity (average decrease=3.07 points, P=.049) but not for oppositional symptoms (average decrease=0.70 points, P=.26). There was a main effect of the duration of care on symptom severity ( P<.001) such that each additional month of care was associated with lower symptom scores.

Conclusions

This study offers promising early evidence that collaborative care DHMIs may facilitate improvements in ADHD symptoms among children and adolescents, addressing the growing need for accessible and high-quality care for behavioral health problems in the United States. However, additional follow-up studies bolstered by larger samples and control groups are necessary to further establish the robustness of these findings.

Related collections

Most cited references 47

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Samuele Cortese, Nicoletta Adamo, Cinzia Del Giovane … (2018)

Summary Background The benefits and safety of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) remain controversial, and guidelines are inconsistent on which medications are preferred across different age groups. We aimed to estimate the comparative efficacy and tolerability of oral medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. Methods We did a literature search for published and unpublished double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing amphetamines (including lisdexamfetamine), atomoxetine, bupropion, clonidine, guanfacine, methylphenidate, and modafinil with each other or placebo. We systematically contacted study authors and drug manufacturers for additional information. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in severity of ADHD core symptoms based on teachers' and clinicians' ratings) and tolerability (proportion of patients who dropped out of studies because of side-effects) at timepoints closest to 12 weeks, 26 weeks, and 52 weeks. We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. We assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and confidence of estimates with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach for network meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014008976. Findings 133 double-blind randomised controlled trials (81 in children and adolescents, 51 in adults, and one in both) were included. The analysis of efficacy closest to 12 weeks was based on 10 068 children and adolescents and 8131 adults; the analysis of tolerability was based on 11 018 children and adolescents and 5362 adults. The confidence of estimates varied from high or moderate (for some comparisons) to low or very low (for most indirect comparisons). For ADHD core symptoms rated by clinicians in children and adolescents closest to 12 weeks, all included drugs were superior to placebo (eg, SMD −1·02, 95% CI −1·19 to −0·85 for amphetamines, −0·78, −0·93 to −0·62 for methylphenidate, −0·56, −0·66 to −0·45 for atomoxetine). By contrast, for available comparisons based on teachers' ratings, only methylphenidate (SMD −0·82, 95% CI −1·16 to −0·48) and modafinil (−0·76, −1·15 to −0·37) were more efficacious than placebo. In adults (clinicians' ratings), amphetamines (SMD −0·79, 95% CI −0·99 to −0·58), methylphenidate (−0·49, −0·64 to −0·35), bupropion (−0·46, −0·85 to −0·07), and atomoxetine (−0·45, −0·58 to −0·32), but not modafinil (0·16, −0·28 to 0·59), were better than placebo. With respect to tolerability, amphetamines were inferior to placebo in both children and adolescents (odds ratio [OR] 2·30, 95% CI 1·36–3·89) and adults (3·26, 1·54–6·92); guanfacine was inferior to placebo in children and adolescents only (2·64, 1·20–5·81); and atomoxetine (2·33, 1·28–4·25), methylphenidate (2·39, 1·40–4·08), and modafinil (4·01, 1·42–11·33) were less well tolerated than placebo in adults only. In head-to-head comparisons, only differences in efficacy (clinicians' ratings) were found, favouring amphetamines over modafinil, atomoxetine, and methylphenidate in both children and adolescents (SMDs −0·46 to −0·24) and adults (−0·94 to −0·29). We did not find sufficient data for the 26-week and 52-week timepoints. Interpretation Our findings represent the most comprehensive available evidence base to inform patients, families, clinicians, guideline developers, and policymakers on the choice of ADHD medications across age groups. Taking into account both efficacy and safety, evidence from this meta-analysis supports methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults, as preferred first-choice medications for the short-term treatment of ADHD. New research should be funded urgently to assess long-term effects of these drugs. Funding Stichting Eunethydis (European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders), and the UK National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.

0 comments Cited 339 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Developing and Evaluating Digital Interventions to Promote Behavior Change in Health and Health Care: Recommendations Resulting From an International Workshop

Susan Michie, Lucy Yardley, Robert L. West … (2017)

Devices and programs using digital technology to foster or support behavior change (digital interventions) are increasingly ubiquitous, being adopted for use in patient diagnosis and treatment, self-management of chronic diseases, and in primary prevention. They have been heralded as potentially revolutionizing the ways in which individuals can monitor and improve their health behaviors and health care by improving outcomes, reducing costs, and improving the patient experience. However, we are still mainly in the age of promise rather than delivery. Developing and evaluating these digital interventions presents new challenges and new versions of old challenges that require use of improved and perhaps entirely new methods for research and evaluation. This article discusses these challenges and provides recommendations aimed at accelerating the rate of progress in digital behavior intervention research and practice. Areas addressed include intervention development in a rapidly changing technological landscape, promoting user engagement, advancing the underpinning science and theory, evaluating effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and addressing issues of regulatory, ethical, and information governance. This article is the result of a two-day international workshop on how to create, evaluate, and implement effective digital interventions in relation to health behaviors. It was held in London in September 2015 and was supported by the United Kingdom’s Medical Research Council (MRC), the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Methodology Research Programme (PI Susan Michie), and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation of the United States (PI Kevin Patrick). Important recommendations to manage the rapid pace of change include considering using emerging techniques from data science, machine learning, and Bayesian approaches and learning from other disciplines including computer science and engineering. With regard to assessing and promoting engagement, a key conclusion was that sustained engagement is not always required and that for each intervention it is useful to establish what constitutes “effective engagement,” that is, sufficient engagement to achieve the intended outcomes. The potential of digital interventions for testing and advancing theories of behavior change by generating ecologically valid, real-time objective data was recognized. Evaluations should include all phases of the development cycle, designed for generalizability, and consider new experimental designs to make the best use of rich data streams. Future health economics analyses need to recognize and model the complex and potentially far-reaching costs and benefits of digital interventions. In terms of governance, developers of digital behavior interventions should comply with existing regulatory frameworks, but with consideration for emerging standards around information governance, ethics, and interoperability.

0 comments Cited 223 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Implementing Measurement-Based Care in Behavioral Health

Cara Lewis, Meredith Boyd, Ajeng Puspitasari … (2018)

Measurement-based care (MBC) is the systematic evaluation of patient symptoms before or during an encounter to inform behavioral health treatment. Despite MBC's demonstrated ability to enhance usual care by expediting improvements and rapidly detecting patients whose health would otherwise deteriorate, it is underused, with typically less than 20% of behavioral health practitioners integrating it into their practice. This narrative review addresses definitional issues, offers a concrete and evaluable operationalization of MBC fidelity, and summarizes the evidence base and utility of MBC. It also synthesizes the extant literature's characterization of barriers to and strategies for supporting MBC implementation, sustainment, and scale-up.

0 comments Cited 122 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Darian Lawrence-Sidebottom:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8252-2424

Bend Health, Inc.2801 Marshall CtMadison, WI, 53705United States1 8005160975darian.lawrence@bendhealth.com

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): JMIR Form Res

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): JMIR Form Res

Journal ID (publisher-id): JFR

Title: JMIR Formative Research

Publisher: JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )

ISSN (Electronic): 2561-326X

Publication date Collection: 2023

Publication date (Electronic): 26 April 2023

Volume: 7

Electronic Location Identifier: e46578

Affiliations

[1 ] Bend Health, Inc. Madison, WI United States

[2 ] FitMinded, Inc. LLC Phoenix, AZ United States

Author notes

Corresponding Author: Darian Lawrence-Sidebottom darian.lawrence@ 123456bendhealth.com

Author information

Darian Lawrence-Sidebottom https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8252-2424

Landry Goodgame Huffman https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5328-6485

Jennifer Huberty https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0276-4640

Clare Beatty https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2110-1110

Monika Roots https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6691-8353

Kurt Roots https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2040-286X

Amit Parikh https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1335-3329

Rachael Guerra https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8541-8259

Jaclyn Weiser https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0307-5935

Article

Publisher ID: v7i1e46578

DOI: 10.2196/46578

PMC ID: 10173032

PubMed ID: 37099379

SO-VID: ba405221-3460-4ca2-98fb-0fbc5c38d3bc

Copyright © ©Darian Lawrence-Sidebottom, Landry Goodgame Huffman, Jennifer Huberty, Clare Beatty, Monika Roots, Kurt Roots, Amit Parikh, Rachael Guerra, Jaclyn Weiser. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 26.04.2023.

License:

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Formative Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://formative.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

History

Date received : 17 February 2023

Date revision requested : 22 March 2023

Date revision received : 28 March 2023

Date accepted : 3 April 2023

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 6

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 470

See all reference authors

- Version 1

Submit your digital health research with an established publisher
- celebrating 25 years of open access