Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION:There is a striking knowledge gap on ADHD in older adults, and the diagnosis as well as treatment for ADHD in this age group. AREAS COVERED:The authors first review the literature on the prevalence, functional impairment, and health comorbidities of ADHD across the lifespan. Next, they address the diagnostic criteria for ADHD in adults according to the DSM/ICD, available screening/diagnostic tools, differential diagnosis, and the validity of diagnostic criteria for ADHD in older adults. Finally, the authors focus on empirical evidence on the prevalence rates, medication response, and safety of pharmacological treatment of ADHD in older adults, and national and international clinical guidelines on the treatment of ADHD in this age group. EXPERT OPINION:It is expected that future editions of the DSM and ICD will provide specifiers to the standard ADHD criteria, to better inform the diagnosis of ADHD in older adults. It is also expected that the increasing number of epidemiological studies will provide rigorous estimates on the prevalence, incidence, and burden of ADHD in older adults. One may expect an increasing number of RCTs assessing the efficacy/effectiveness and tolerability/safety of pharmacological as well as non-pharmacological interventions which will inform future guidelines on ADHD in older adults.

OBJECTIVES:To summarise evidence on intrawork breaks and their associated effect on doctors' well-being and/or performance at work. DESIGN:Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement guidelines DATA SOURCES: Embase, PubMed, Web of Science (Core Collection) and PsychINFO were systematically searched on 6 June 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:No restrictions were placed on language, study design or date of publication. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS:Methodological quality was appraised using Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB-2), Cochrane's Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies (ROBINS-I), and the Johanna Briggs Institute (JBI) checklists for cross-sectional, cohort and qualitative studies. Quantitative synthesis was not undertaken due to substantial heterogeneity of design and outcomes. Results are presented narratively. RESULTS:Database searches returned 10 557 results and searches of other sources returned two additional records. Thirty-two papers were included in the systematic review, comprised of 29 unique studies, participants and topics and 3 follow-up studies. A variety of well-being and performance outcome measures were used. Overall, findings indicate that intrawork breaks improved some measures of well-being and/or work performance. However, methodological quality was judged to be low with a high risk of bias in most included studies. DISCUSSION:Using existing evidence, it is not possible to conclude with confidence whether intrawork breaks improve well-being and/or work performance in doctors. There is much inconsistency regarding how breaks are defined, measured and the outcomes used to assess effectiveness. Future research should seek to: (a) define and standardise the measurement of breaks, (b) use valid, reliable outcome measures to evaluate their impact on well-being and performance and (c) minimise the risk of bias in studies where possible. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42020156924; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=156924.

BACKGROUND:Children referred for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often present with a broader pattern of conduct problems including oppositionality and defiance. This combination can be extremely stressful to parents, lower parents' self-esteem and negatively impact family life. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that families receive support as soon as possible after their referral. However, as clinical services are overstretched, and traditional in-person parenting intervention programmes are expensive, families often must wait times a long time prior to receiving this vital input. To address this, we have created a digital parenting programme called STEPS. It is delivered as a mobile phone app providing a set of tools and resources that can be easily accessed at parents' convenience. This study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of STEPS in supporting parents of children with high levels of hyperactivity/impulsivity, inattention and conduct problems, who are waiting to be assessed by specialist children's clinical services. METHODS:Online Parent Training for The Initial Management of ADHD referrals (OPTIMA) is a two-arm superiority parallel randomised controlled trial with an internal pilot study. We aim to recruit 352 parents and their children, who have been accepted onto a waitlist in Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services or similar child health services. Parents who consent will be randomised 1:1 to either the STEPS or wait-as-usual (WAU) group. The trial will be conducted remotely (online and telephone) with measures taken at baseline and 3, 6, 9 and 12 months post-randomisation. The primary objective is to evaluate whether STEPS reduces the severity of children's oppositional and defiant behaviour, as rated by parents, measured at 3 months post-randomisation compared to WAU. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Digital solutions, such as mobile phone apps, have potential for delivering psychological support for parents of children with clinical-level needs in a timely and inexpensive manner. This trial will provide data on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STEPS app, which could support the implementation of this scalable parenting intervention programme into standard clinical care and, ultimately, improve the outcomes for families of children referred to specialist child and adolescent health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION/BACKGROUND:ISRCTN 16523503. Prospectively registered on 18 November 2021. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16523503.

The British Association for Psychopharmacology course on child and adolescent psychopharmacology has been run for more than 20 years and is currently a very popular course, attracting around 140 delegates/year from across the United Kingdom and abroad. As Faculty of recent sessions of the course, we have selected the most common questions we have been asked in recent years and provided evidence-based and/or expert-informed answers. We have included 27 questions and answers related to attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depressive disorders, autism spectrum disorder, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, epilepsy (in differential diagnosis or comorbid with mental health conditions), obsessive-compulsive disorder, personality disorders, psychotic spectrum disorders, and tics/Tourette syndrome in children and young people. We hope that this article will be helpful for prescribers in their daily clinical practice and we look forward to further, high-level evidence informing the answers to these and other questions in child and adolescent psychopharmacology.

In this Editorial Perspective, we take a systematic look at the overall nature of the Covid-19 related research on mental health in children and young people, to gain insight into the major trends in this area of research and inform future lines of investigation, clinical practices, and policies. By means of state-of-the-art scientometric approaches, we identified 3,692 relevant research outputs, mainly clustering around the following themes: (a) mental health consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic in children and young people; (b) impact of the pandemic on pre-existing psychiatric disorders; (c) family outcomes (i.e., family violence and parental mental health); and (d) link between physical and mental conditions. Only 23% of the retrieved publications reported new data, the remaining ones being reviews, editorials, opinion papers, and other nonempirical reports. The majority of the empirical studies used a cross-sectional design. We suggest that future research efforts should prioritise: (a) longitudinal follow-up of existing cohorts; (b) quasi-experimental studies to gain insight into causal mechanisms underlying pandemic-related psychopathology in children and young people; (c) pragmatic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to test evidence-based intervention strategies; and (d) evidence-based guidelines for clinicians and policymakers.

In 2020, we wrote to you of our dedication and vision for this Journal "to be antiracist at every level," outlining the following 6 initiatives "to reshape the Journal to pursue this vision:" (1) Issuing a Call for Papers on racism and its impacts on child development and children's mental health; (2) updating our Guide for Authors to emphasize that we will evaluate articles submitted to the Journal on whether their study designs are inclusive and their discussions consider and address human diversity and structural determinants of health in the context of their research questions and hypotheses; (3) assembling a special collection of Journal articles on bias, bigotry, discrimination, racism, and mental health inequities; (4) accelerating our efforts to make our Editorial Board inclusive and representative of our community of scientists and practitioners as well as the communities we serve; (5) engaging in continuing education and dialogue as an Editorial Board that will include antiracism training and praxis; and (6) critically examining "our editorial and peer review process to ensure it is antiracist."¹ In this Editors' Note, we write to update you on our progress, including a new initiative we started in the past year: (7) a new option for authors to add a statement to their manuscripts regarding the inclusion and diversity initiatives and practices they employed in pursuing their work. With the launch this year of JAACAP Open, the Academy's new open access publication and the newest member of the JAACAP family of journals, we have expanded opportunities to pursue these efforts, and look forward to sharing more about JAACAP Open in future updates.

We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effects of stimulant and non-stimulant medications on autonomic functioning in people with ADHD (PROSPERO: CRD42020212439). We searched (9th August 2021) PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library, for randomised and non-randomised studies reporting indices of autonomic activity, (electrodermal, pupillometry and cardiac), pre- and post-medication exposure in people meeting DSM/ICD criteria for ADHD. In the narrative syntheses, we included 5 electrodermal studies, 1 pupillometry study and 57 studies investigating heart rate and blood pressure. In the meta-analyses, 29 studies were included on blood pressure and 32 on heart rate. Administration of stimulants, and to a lesser degree, non-stimulants increased heart rate and blood pressure in people with ADHD. Similarly, an upregulation of arousal, reflected in increased electrodermal activity and pupil diameter was observed following stimulant use. Yet, the methodological diversity of studies presented in this review reinforces the need for more standardised and rigorous research to fully understand the relationship between arousal, medication, and behaviour in ADHD.

IMPORTANCE:Use of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medications has increased substantially over the past decades, but there are concerns regarding their cardiovascular safety. OBJECTIVE:To provide an updated synthesis of evidence on whether ADHD medications are associated with the risk of a broad range of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). DATA SOURCES:PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science up to May 1, 2022. STUDY SELECTION:Observational studies investigating the association between ADHD medications (including stimulants and nonstimulants) and risk of CVD. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality using the Good Research for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) checklist. Data were pooled using random-effects models. This study is reported according to the Meta-analyses of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guideline. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:The outcome was any type of cardiovascular event, including hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, heart failure, venous thromboembolism, tachyarrhythmias, and cardiac arrest. RESULTS:Nineteen studies (with 3 931 532 participants including children, adolescents, and adults; 60.9% male), of which 14 were cohort studies, from 6 countries or regions were included in the meta-analysis. Median follow-up time ranged from 0.25 to 9.5 years (median, 1.5 years). Pooled adjusted relative risk (RR) did not show a statistically significant association between ADHD medication use and any CVD among children and adolescents (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.91-1.53), young or middle-aged adults (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.43-2.48), or older adults (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.62-4.05). No significant associations for stimulants (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.84-1.83) or nonstimulants (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.25-5.97) were observed. For specific cardiovascular outcomes, no statistically significant association was found in relation to cardiac arrest or arrhythmias (RR, 1.60; 95% CI, 0.94-2.72), cerebrovascular diseases (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.72-1.15), or myocardial infarction (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.68-1.65). There was no associations with any CVD in female patients (RR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.43-8.24) and in those with preexisting CVD (RR, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.80-2.16). Heterogeneity between studies was high and significant except for the analysis on cerebrovascular diseases. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:This meta-analysis suggests no statistically significant association between ADHD medications and the risk of CVD across age groups, although a modest risk increase could not be ruled out, especially for the risk of cardiac arrest or tachyarrhythmias. Further investigation is warranted for the cardiovascular risk in female patients and patients with preexisting CVD as well as long-term risks associated with ADHD medication use.

BACKGROUND:The COVID-19 pandemic has caused an increase in mental ill health compared with prepandemic levels. Longer-term trajectories of depression in adults during the pandemic remain unclear. OBJECTIVE:We used latent growth curve modelling to examine individual trajectories of depression symptoms, and their predictors, beyond the early stage of the pandemic. METHODS:Data were collected in three waves in May 2020, September/October 2020 and February/March 2021 in four UK cohorts (Millennium Cohort Study, Next Steps cohort, British Cohort and National Child Development Study). We included n=16 978 participants (mean age at baseline: 20, 30, 50 and 62, respectively). Self-reported depressive symptoms were the study outcome. FINDINGS/RESULTS:Symptoms of depression were higher in younger compared with older age groups (d=0.7) across all waves. While depressive symptoms remained stable from May 2020 to Autumn 2020 overall (standardized mean difference (SMD)=0.03, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.04), they increased in all age groups from May 2020 to Spring 2021 (SMD=0.12, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.13). Feelings of loneliness were the strongest predictor and concurrent correlate of increasing depressive symptoms across all cohorts, prepandemic mental health problems and having a long-term illness were also significantly associated with an increase in depression symptoms across all ages. By contrast, compliance with social distancing measures did not predict an increase in depression symptoms. CONCLUSIONS:Feeling lonely and isolated had a large effect on depression trajectories across all generations, while social distancing measures did not. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS/CONCLUSIONS:These findings highlight the importance of fostering the feeling of connectedness during COVID-19-related distancing measures.