ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder presenting to child and adolescent mental health, paediatric, and primary care services. Timely and effective interventions to address core ADHD symptoms and co-occurring problems are a high priority for healthcare and society more widely. While much research has reported on the benefits and adverse effects of different interventions for ADHD, these individual research reports and the reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines summarizing their findings are sometimes inconsistent and difficult to interpret. We have summarized the current evidence and identified several methodological issues and gaps in the current evidence that we believe are important for clinicians to consider when evaluating the evidence and making treatment decisions. These include understanding potential impact of bias such as inadequate blinding and selection bias on study outcomes; the relative lack of high-quality data comparing different treatments and assessing long-term effectiveness, adverse effects and safety for both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments; and the problems associated with observational studies, including those based on large national registries and comparing treatments with each other. We highlight key similarities across current international clinical guidelines and discuss the reasons for divergence where these occur. We discuss the integration of these different perspective into a framework for person/family-centered evidence-based practice approach to care that aims to achieve optimal outcomes that prioritize individual strengths and impairments, as well as the personal treatment targets of children and their families. Finally, we consider how access to care for this common and impairing disorder can be improved in different healthcare systems.
Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder defined by persistent, impairing and developmentally inappropriate inattentive/disorganized and/or hyperactive/impulsive behaviors that lie at the far end of a normally distributed continuum.  ADHD is common, with a worldwide pooled prevalence of around 5.3% in children and adolescents  and 2.8% in adults . Although epidemiological data suggest that, when the same diagnostic criteria and procedures are applied, epidemiological prevalence rates of ADHD are similar throughout the world, the administrative prevalence for ADHD (rate of clinical diagnosis) varies considerably both between and within countries .
ADHD results in considerable burden at an individual, family, and societal level and has an important impact on quality of life and daily functioning [5, 6]. Patients with ADHD are at increased risk for serious negative outcomes including poor educational outcomes , injuries and accidents [8, 9], teenage pregnancies , family conflict , and criminal behavior and incarceration . ADHD is also commonly associated with other psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20] and a number of physical health conditions [21,22,23]. A recent Australian study (population 24.6 million)  estimated the total costs in 2019 as $20.57 billion AUD (£11.3 billion UKP, €12.9M,), which translates to $836 AUD (£459 UKP, €524) per capita. Of this, total 63% were attributable to financial costs and 37% to well-being costs (those costs associated with reduced quality of life and impaired functioning, and premature death).
While there is now considerable evidence to support the efficacy and safety, at least in the short term, of pharmacological  and some non-pharmacological treatments  for ADHD, there are also indications that the positive effects seen in clinical trials are not always realized in day-to-day clinical practice [27, 28]. The purpose of this paper is to critically discuss the most up-to-date clinical evidence on the potential benefits and harms of the various approaches to the treatment and management of ADHD, and to identify the limitations of the current evidence base and the impact of these limitations on interpretation and translation into clinical practice.
This work did not involve primary research, and therefore, no ethical approval was required. The focus is on children and adolescents, because a range of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions has been evaluated in this age range, while the evidence in adults is limited largely to pharmacological interventions. While most clinical trial data have focused on core ADHD symptoms as the primary outcome of interest, an increasing number of studies have recognized the importance of a broader range of outcomes. These include common co-occurring symptoms such as mood lability and those related to coexisting disorders (i.e., ODD, anxiety and depression), functional impairments, quality of life as and more distal outcomes such as criminality , traffic accidents , and mortality rates . We follow this lead on outcome beyond core symptoms in the current paper. As ADHD is usually a chronic and long-term condition , we will wherever possible consider evidence that focuses on long-term as well as short-term outcomes.
We will first consider some of the methodological challenges that we encountered when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of ADHD interventions and highlight how these may have affected interpretation of the evidence and discuss some of the approaches that may mitigate these methodological challenges. We then compare different sets of guidelines in relation to ADHD management, with a particular focus on the common features and highlighting important differences, including possible reasons for these discrepancies. We then discuss how the evidence and guidelines can be translated into high-quality care, and how the clinician can take account of individual symptom profiles, treatment targets, and personal circumstances to provide person- and family-centered approaches to intervention within the current evidence base. Finally, we consider the implications for systems of care and how adherence to evidence-based practice can be implemented across a range of care settings.
The evidence base for interventions
In this section, summarized in Table 1, we highlight several key methodological issues, consider their potential impact on evidence-based decision-making, and give some guidance on what aspects to look for when assessing the evidence.
Evaluating the quality of evidence: risk of bias
Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) remain the gold standard to assess the efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of interventions. In the last couple of decades, there has been a greater appreciation of the importance of rigorous trial design and analyses to ensure that treatment evaluations are not biased. Standardized instruments, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool  and GRADE  criteria, have been applied to assess potential bias of individual trials and the overall quality of the evidence, respectively. Different review groups have applied these tools differently and as a consequence come to different conclusions about the overall quality of evidence and how it should be interpreted (e.g., [25, 36]). These differences often reflect the way thresholds are set (e.g., number of ‘uncertain’ items required for a study to be rated as ‘high risk’) or different approaches to evaluate the impact of potential conflicts of interest. Unlike considerations for pharmacological interventions, there has, until recently, been little attempt to take account of researchers’ involvement in both the development and evaluation of non-pharmacological interventions as an area of potential risk of bias (but see  for a recent advance in the field). In the UK, the National Institute for Healthcare and Excellence (NICE) recently rated the overall quality of evidence as low for non-pharmacological approaches and low-to-moderate for pharmacological interventions . Of note, the evidence level for pharmacological interventions is comparable to the evidence appraisal of some standard interventions for important somatic disorders (e.g., for hypertension  and asthma ).
Adequacy of blinding: are patients, clinicians, and researchers aware of treatment allocation?
A major potential source of bias and therefore for the quality of RCT evidence relates to the presence and adequacy of blinding—whether patients or assessors of outcomes are aware of who received what intervention. There is potential for unblinding even during well-designed and carefully conducted pharmacological trials, which it has been suggested could undermine confidence in all of the evidence for efficacy (e.g., ). While it is possible that the apparent effects of medication could be exaggerated by unblinding due to adverse effects, this has not been demonstrated nor has this view been endorsed by the major evidence-based treatment guidelines, (e.g., ). The potential for bias due to lack of blinding is particularly acute for psychosocial interventions where: (i) blinding is very difficult to implement with integrity and (ii) patients/parents are often the informants for the primary outcomes. To address this problem, the European ADHD Guidelines Group (EAGG), a working group of the European Network for Hyperkinetic Disorders (EUNETHYDIS) estimated the impact of blinding on results in their series of meta-analyses of non-pharmacological treatments for ADHD [26, 42,43,44,45]. They compared what they termed the “most proximal” outcome (MPROX—i.e., rated by persons closest to treatment delivery and, therefore, the most vulnerable to lack of blinding) with the measure judged by the group consensus to be most blinded (PBLIND, i.e., probably blinded). These comparisons provided a range of estimates of treatment efficacy adjusted for degree of blinding. The EAGG meta-analyses found that: (i) MPROX effects were considerably larger (and more significant) than PBLIND effects; (ii) the scale of this MPROX-PBLIND discrepancy varied by treatment type—largest for parent training (where blinding was most challenging to implement) and smaller (though still substantial) for neurofeedback and cognitive training; (iii) the stronger the study design (e.g., sham/placebo controlled designs), the smaller the discrepancy. Even in apparently well-blinded studies (with a sham control), PBLIND gave smaller effects than MPROX. These findings highlight that optimal assessment of treatment efficacy should combine blinding by design and blinding by reporter. It is, however, important to acknowledge that un-blinded outcome measures may still add value, as they may reflect changes in other aspects of the situation that are clinically relevant but not picked up by the blinded raters who may be evaluating more limited range of behaviors.
What are the selection criteria for the clinical sample?
Patient selection entry criteria also represent a potential source of bias and limit generalisability of findings. Most clinicians are aware of the issues relating to non-inclusion in most RCTs of those more complex comorbid cases that are common within their clinical practice. There are, however, several other issues that are not so obvious. For example, many recent medication trials have included enriched samples, for example, excluding participants who have previously not responded to or had adverse effects from one of the study drugs. Although these criteria were implemented for ethical reasons, they are likely to introduce bias, usually in favor of the study drug. Non-pharmacological trials also typically recruit less complex and hence easier to treat patients for reasons of convenience and this can affect trial findings . In non-pharmacological trials, another challenge is that results may be difficult to interpret because of variation in whether participants are receiving ADHD medication, which could reduce the effect of the tested intervention.
Have long as well as short-term effects been assessed?
While there is a wealth of data regarding the short-term efficacy of treatments for ADHD, high-quality data on longer term outcomes are still lacking and the long-term effectiveness of ADHD interventions, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological, continues to be debated [28, 46, 47]. The situation has improved somewhat, since the European Medicines Agency (EMA) required companies to include longer term efficacy trials of at least 6 months or with a randomized withdrawal period of at least 6 months as well as long-term safety trials of at least 1 year, as a part of the data presented for marketing authorization (http://bit.ly/1O2XRPp). Several of these randomized discontinuation trials have now been published although few have exceeded the 1 year duration required by the regulatory authorities [48,49,50,51].
A number of studies, including the Multimodal Treatment of ADHD (MTA) study  and observational cohort studies, provide information about longer term efficacy and adverse effects. While hugely valuable in many respects, the non-random nature of the data limits the conclusions about causal effects. These designs often include a lack of blinding and biases in a number of factors influencing who remains on medication (e.g., [52, 53]).
Are adverse effects adequately assessed?
Adequate measurement of short- and long-term adverse effects is often a concern. While adverse events are routinely measured in drug trials which are required to comply with legal and ethical requirements, this has traditionally been through spontaneous self-report and over relatively short time frames. The EMA guidelines on the clinical investigation of medications for ADHD have also insisted that companies conduct open-label safety studies of at least 1 year with prospective follow-up for a longer period of time as a part of the Risk Management Plan (RMP) post-licensing (http://bit.ly/1O2XRPp) and have directed that these studies focus on growth and puberty, cardiovascular safety, as well as psychiatric and neurological adverse effects. However, the lack of a comparison group in these studies (e.g., ) makes interpretation of their findings much more complicated. Very few non-pharmacological trials make any attempt to measure possible adverse outcomes. The assumption that such interventions are unlikely to have any negative effects is perhaps naive and until recently rarely tested  and the recent work suggests that this may be an under-appreciated phenomenon .
What can we conclude from observational studies?
Despite their clear limitations , observational studies have certain advantages and can helpfully complement RCTs. They importantly often include real-world outcomes, such as criminal convictions [58, 59], violent re-offending , depression , suicidality [62, 63], substance misuse [64, 65], psychotic disorders and hallucinations in childhood and adolescence , childhood injuries [67,68,69], emergency visits [70,71,72], and transport accidents , motor vehicle crashes , and school performance [74, 75]. Further strengths of these studies include their large samples and potential for observation over extended periods. Several studies have adopted innovative designs, such as the use of self-controlled case series, e.g., , aimed at decreasing the bias due to the lack of randomization in observational studies, in an attempt to mitigate these limitations. However, it is still important to recognize limitations that cannot be addressed by the self-controlled case-series design, such as the potential for referral bias, lack of control for time-varying confounders , and the frequent lack of information on the validity of diagnoses and explanatory variables, when considering the often impressive findings.
How do we assess whether one treatment is better than another?
Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a relatively recent development in the field of evidence synthesis that allows comparison among different interventions, to provide a ranking of interventions based on, e.g., efficacy and tolerability. Supported by the WHO, Cochrane, GRADE, and NICE , NMAs have several potential benefits , including their ability to take into account a much wider range of evidence and make quantitative comparisons between interventions even when they have not been directly compared in head-to-head studies. However, NMA methodology requires a very rigorous and careful approach to ensure accurate and reliable results. A main consideration is the requirement for transitivity (i.e., that effect modifiers do not substantially differ across the included trials). This is currently particularly challenging when trying to combine evidence from pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions into a single network of a NMA .
A summary of the current evidence
Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been published assessing the efficacy and/or tolerability of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for ADHD and these data have been further scrutinized in the development of evidence-based guidelines.
The most recent and comprehensive appraisal of pharmacological treatments is the network meta-analysis (NMA) conducted by the EAGG, with stringent inclusion/exclusion criteria (such as excluding enrichment designs and RCTs with add-on treatments) as well as including both published and unpublished data. The main findings on efficacy and tolerability are presented in Table 2. These data support general efficacy and tolerability for a broad range of ADHD medications with methylphenidate in children and adolescents, and amphetamines in adults leading the table based on combined efficacy and tolerability profiles. As described above, a significant limitation in our understanding of pharmacological treatments for ADHD relates to the lack of methodologically sound data on longer term effectiveness which therefore remains uncertain. It is, therefore, important that studies with more advanced designs such as long-term randomized discontinuation trials as well as those using within-subject designs through linked registry data and data from electronic medical records are supported and conducted .
Tolerability and safety
In relation to adverse events and safety, both individual reviews, meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis demonstrate good short-term tolerability of ADHD medications once the events are equally common in treatment and placebo arms are taken into account. Common short-term adverse effects are well described and routine monitoring is part of standard care as discussed in many clinical guidelines [41, 79]. The same challenges described above for identifying longer term effectiveness also apply to longer term adverse events, but are compounded by the potential problems of statistical power when trying to identify rare but important adverse effects such as completed suicide and severe cardiovascular events. The most effective way to provide these data are through observational studies using large registry and research databases that can provide complementary data to that from clinical trials and meta-analyses. It is therefore essential that these studies are supported and conducted.
Several high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses have also investigated the evidence for the efficacy and effectiveness, but not acceptability or adverse events, of non-pharmacological approaches to treating ADHD (Table 3). For behavioral parent training, blinded ratings do not support an effect on core ADHD symptoms but do show a significant increase in positive parenting and reduction in both negative parenting and children’s oppositional behaviors . The evidence around neurofeedback is most hotly contested, with different research groups presenting different arguments and rationales about which studies should be included, which protocols were used to deliver neurofeedback and which outcomes should be considered [80,81,82,83,84]. Positive effects seen with un-blinded outcomes are not sustained when blinded outcomes  or sham controls [85, 86] are included in the analyses. While there are studies showing beneficial effects on inattention , we recommend that both standard neurofeedback approaches  and the more intensive treatments  require further evidence and validation before neurofeedback should be considered as standard clinical interventions for ADHD. Cognitive training, defined as “the process of improving cognitive functioning by means of practice and/or intentional instructions”, showed a medium-to-large effect on unblinded outcomes [26, 42]. These effects remained marginally significant for probably blinded outcomes for ADHD symptoms and significant positive effects on laboratory tests of verbal and visual working memory, but, importantly, were not significant for attention and inhibition or academic functions. An overview of systematic reviews of dietary interventions concluded that individual study methods were weak and that different meta-analyses have used very different inclusion and exclusion criteria and that this has resulted in a wide range of estimated effect sizes . There is a small but statistically significant effect on probably blinded ratings for supplementation with free fatty acids, while the evidence to support either restricted elimination diets or elimination of artificial food colors is less certain.
International clinical guidelines: key differences
Clinical guidelines are an important mechanism for increasing evidence-based clinical practice, and improving quality of care and resource allocation. Several national guidelines from Europe and North America, compared in Table 4, have published recommendations for the management of ADHD in children and adolescents. These come from distinct cultures with very different healthcare systems, and with varying rates of diagnostic identification, and differing availability of both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Guidelines also vary in the clinical issues addressed and methods for reviewing evidence. Methodological differences include: the use or not of professional reviewers versus clinical experts; the prioritization of expert opinion versus evidence base; undertaking of an independent primary review of the literature or reliance on existing reviews and whether costs of intervention are considered when making recommendations.
The recommendations of the cited guidelines (apart from the Canadian CADDRA guidelines which did not include a systematic review of the evidence) were developed by combining evidence summaries (based on systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and assessment of quality of evidence, with the most recent guidelines using the GRADE system for evaluating quality of evidence ), with expert opinion.
Despite being largely reliant on the same evidence base, differences in recommendations are especially likely when high-level evidence (i.e., meta-analyses randomized-controlled trials; RCTs) is lacking. In such circumstance, different groups have taken different approaches—the UK NICE  and the German Guidelines  use expert opinion, the Dutch Guidelines  take individual studies into account, and the Spanish Guidelines  consider the recommendations of other guidelines including NICE and the American Academy of Pediatrics , evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) methodology . Only NICE and the Dutch Guidelines included health economic evidence when considering their recommendations.
Similarities across guidelines
In summary, in relation to assessment and diagnosis
All guidance specifies who can diagnose and prescribe; European (UK, German, Dutch and Spanish) guidance makes specific reference to specialist ADHD training among paediatricians and psychiatrists, while North American guidance includes primary care physicians. For prescribing, UK NICE guidance also allows shared care plans between specialists and primary care physicians.
All guidelines agree that the clinical interview and direct observations, including assessments of impairment, physical and psychiatric comorbidity, and family history, provide the basis to establish a diagnosis.
Rating scales are recommended as auxiliary diagnostic tools and as systematic outcome measures in treatment monitoring, rather than as the gold standard for the diagnosis.
Neuropsychological assessment is not considered to be essential to establish the diagnosis, even though it can provide useful information to better tailor the management.
In relation to treatment:
All guidelines take account of developmental differences, but some specifically stratify treatment recommendations according to age, with three groups identified:
Young children: under 5 years (NICE) or under 6 years (German and Spanish Guidelines); school-aged children: 5/6-18 years; and adults: >18 years. The Dutch guidelines further differentiated between children 6 and 12 and adolescents 12 and 18 years.
The RCT evidence for efficacy and safety of medication in young children is considered too limited to recommend medication for routine treatment in this age group, but medication is an option that could be considered in selected cases.
When pharmacological treatment is indicated, most guidelines suggest that stimulants are the preferred first-line medication. The Spanish Guidelines only indicate that any of the approved medications can be used without offering any recommended order of priority.
All agree on the need for psychosocial interventions, but differ in their timing in the management of ADHD. In contrast to the other guidelines, the NICE 2018 Guideline no longer recommends parent training as first-line treatment in school-aged children because of the lower effect sizes and poorer quality of evidence compared to medication, but ADHD-focused parent training remains the first-line intervention for pre-school children.
Guidelines differ in whether they consider ADHD severity as a factor when making recommendations. NICE (2018) currently do not, while the German and Dutch Guidelines, adopting the DSM-5 definitions of severity, do. Both the Dutch and NICE guidelines also take co-occurring ODD/CD into account. As the main aim of the severity specifier is to avoid overuse of medication in less severe cases, these different approaches may reflect variation in administrative diagnostic rates, which, for example, are higher in Germany (3.2–6.1%) [93,94,95] than in the UK (0.5–1.5%) . In the Spanish Guidelines, where children are severely affected, clinicians may prescribe outside the formulary (i.e., use medication in children <6 years old).
Apart from the consensus-based CADDRA guidelines , these guidelines include a few specific recommendations on personalized approaches to ADHD interventions, including co-occurring conditions, and where these occur, they rely largely on expert opinion, rather than trial evidence.
With respect to pre-medication investigations (Table 5), all guidelines take an individualized approach, based on personal and family history of possible cardiac disease together with essential physical assessments including height, weight, blood pressure, and pulse. None of the guidelines require routine cardiac investigations, such as an electrocardiogram. For all guidelines, ongoing monitoring includes height, weight, pulse, and blood pressures, as well as a systematic review of benefits and possible adverse effects. Guidance varies in the extent it specifies the enquiry around class-specific possible adverse effects.
Translating the evidence and guidance into day-to-day management of ADHD
Careful and close application of evidence-based protocols, such as those employed in the MTA trial, often lead to better outcomes for patients in terms of ADHD symptoms  and there is emerging evidence that these improvements can be translated into routine practice . While the use of evidence-based guidelines to inform the delivery of treatment is strongly recommended, guidelines usually focus on applying evidence from RCTs at the group level in a probabilistic way to inform decision-making for individual cases. While this is a core principle of evidence-based practice, there are clearly other factors that need to be considered alongside the evidence and guideline recommendation. These more general ‘management’ issues are often less well researched and not always as well covered by published guidelines. While it is tempting to rely solely on effect sizes when comparing the possible value of different treatment approaches for a particular patient, it is also important to take into account the methodological limitations described above when considering comparisons between different treatments. It is also important to consider that: (1) different treatment approaches have different mechanisms of action and that these can impact on factors such as duration of action or acceptability and (2) different treatments also target different areas of impairment. The contrasts between different approaches are important to consider both when deciding between pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches and also within each approach, selecting the interventions most suitable for individual patients. While all of the licensed ADHD drugs primarily target a reduction in ADHD symptoms, impact on other symptoms such as emotional dysregulation and mind wandering as well as indirect effects on associated mood , conduct problems , and other functional domains  have been demonstrated.
In terms of duration of action, while the non-stimulants atomoxetine and guanfacine have lower effect sizes on ADHD core symptom reduction , they have a longer duration of action than stimulants, which may be particularly relevant for some patients (such as those with long-day schedules). Parent training, on the other hand, is useful in modifying longer term parent–child interactions, such that there is not only a long-term change in parenting style but also in a child’s behavior; because these are common problems in ADHD, guidelines have retained parent training as a recommended treatment. While still controversial interventions, both neurofeedback and cognitive training also seek to make long-term changes to brain functioning that go beyond symptom control . The issue for both is whether the observed changes in laboratory measures of brain activity and cognition translate to improved symptoms and/or functioning in everyday life. The ‘or’ is important in view of several studies that have indicated a dissociation between improvement in cognition or brain function and symptoms .
Patient and parent priorities; It is important to ensure that patient and parental priorities, preferences and choices are taken into account through the provision of information, followed by a process of shared decision-making . Families will have their own concerns and preferences , which may be influenced by personal experience, other family members, or information from the wider public or accessed through the media, which can often be inaccurate and contradictory [108, 109]. It is particularly important to seek ways to include children and young people in decisions about their treatment, and focus on enabling them to take increasing levels of responsibility for selecting, adhering to, and monitoring their care as they develop . Young people must be involved in discussions around transition to adult services [110, 111].
Much of the broader management aims for ADHD can be achieved through high-quality psychoeducation offered at the beginning of the treatment process and topped up at intervals thereafter . Evidence-based psychoeducation should help families and young people become more knowledgeable about ADHD and co-occurring conditions and their management, considering of their individual, familial, and cultural health beliefs and constructs, and their concerns, attitudes, and beliefs about ADHD. It should empower them as consumers to take active informed responsibility for their treatment plan and enhance therapeutic adherence .
After psychoeducation, a shared management plan should be created, prioritizing problems and translating them into aims and action plans. Parents and children may have different priorities for treatment targets and these differences should be identified and discussed to build consensus and focus .
Monitoring to optimize outcomes
While we strongly support treatment optimization and the use of measurement-based care , there are few data on ADHD to guide best practice in this respect. Measurement-based care, aimed at reducing symptoms and identifying adverse events, can improve both short- and long-term clinical outcomes and enhance treatment adherence . It is, however, essential that clinicians also focus on broader outcomes when monitoring care, including quality of life  as well as patient/family priorities. For those not achieving optimal outcomes from the first treatment/s, alternative approaches should be considered . While the sequencing of treatment options [25, 117, 118] has received some attention, a few studies have looked at more general management considerations. Stepped care approaches which present different treatment approaches of increasing intensity dependent on response have been discussed for many years but have not yet been well studied. Several well-designed studies examining various stepped care approaches for ADHD are underway, which, when completed, should give new insights into this approach. [119,120,121,122].
Treating ADHD in the presence of co-occurring disorders
Co-occurring disorders commonly present a complicating factor when managing ADHD . In prioritizing and sequencing treatment decisions, consideration should be given to which condition is causing the most (acute) distress, which has the most effective interventions, and whether treatment of one is needed before intervention for another is likely to be effective [124,125,126]. There is also evidence that for some co-occurring disorders, integrated treatment for both at the same time is the most effective approach (e.g., ADHD and anxiety , ADHD, and substance use disorder ). There can be important interplay between treatments. These are not limited to drug interactions, which always need to be considered, but might also include interactions between pharmacological and psychological treatments such as reduced medication dose following behavioral treatments [117, 129,130,131].
Implications for service organization
When developing clinical services for children and adolescents with ADHD, a multi-disciplinary team is preferable to facilitate comprehensive evaluations including comorbidities, and to provide a wide range of therapeutic options [124, 132]. Patients with ADHD often present with multiple impairments and benefit not only from the interventions provided by psychiatrists and psychologists that target core symptoms, but also from the skills of speech and language therapists, nurses, occupational therapists, psychotherapists, and family therapists, who focus on associated conditions, on treatment adherence and the challenges of ADHD for the family. Clinicians should also promote interventions and environmental modifications that increase responsibility and social participation more widely. This includes supporting schools to utilize effective management strategies [133,134,135] and also promoting ways that the community can be more broadly engaged and supported to help those with ADHD achieve better integration and involvement . Community-based staff are well placed to support lines of communication with educational and social care agencies.
Strengthening care pathways
Clinicians and commissioners of services need to consider and seek to reduce many barriers that limit access to ADHD care [137, 138]. These include: limited provision of services; inadequate recognition of ADHD as a potential cause of impairment and distress; complex referral pathways and mechanisms for financial reimbursement. A chronic shortage of appropriately trained health professionals within the workforce also reduces access to the full range of appropriate evidence-based interventions [139, 140].
The dominant model of care is provision in a clinical setting, one-on-one, with highly trained professionals. However, this model can be expensive and limit access . Non-clinical services and combined mental/physical health services may be helpful in the management of young people with ADHD, the delivery of interventions, and reaching those families that have difficulty accessing regular clinical services [136, 141,142,143]. Other non-clinical community settings including charities and support groups as well as online resources and (partly) digital interventions can increase capacity and lower costs without sacrificing effectiveness [136, 142]. These approaches may be particularly appropriate for interventions such as parent training, CBT, psychoeducation, and coaching . The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the implementation of online, remote assessments and particularly interventions for ADHD. While necessary during recent periods of social restriction, these have potential longer term utility to increase access for those living at a distance or otherwise finding it difficult to attend in person. It will be important to ensure that other social groups are not excluded by these innovations. School-based interventions are associated with moderate-to-large functional improvements in meta-analyses , although not in all studies .
ADHD is the most common neurodevelopmental disorder in children and adolescents. Although ADHD presents with varying levels of severity, a substantial proportion of affected individuals experience persistent symptoms and substantial impairment from their core ADHD and/or co-occurring symptoms. Therefore, the accurate identification of ADHD and implementation of effective interventions is essential. There is a substantial evidence base, at least in the short term, for a range of pharmacological and, for non-core symptoms, some non-pharmacological treatments, with considerable consensus across different national guidelines emanating from societies that are diverse in terms of their rates of acceptance and identification and their organization of healthcare. However, as in many areas of healthcare, there are significant methodological problems with much of the research underpinning these guidelines and the clinicians should be aware of these and how they may limit interpretation of the evidence. Despite these methodological concerns, clinicians should be confident that ADHD medications are effective, well-tolerated, and safe. Parent training provides an important complement, but largely in relation to reducing additional behavioral problems and improving parent–child relationships. High-quality evidence for neuromodulation—including neurofeedback and cognitive training—is more limited, and as a consequence, these should not currently be recommended as the first-line interventions for core symptoms.
Management of ADHD extends beyond the implementation of guidelines and should be seen as a partnership with patients and their parents, underpinned by psychoeducation and a shared, agreed-upon management plan that considers individual treatment priorities and preferences. While standard care is delivered in clinical settings through one-to-one patient/clinician relationships, schools and third sector settings have much to contribute to a comprehensive approach. Future research should evaluate the utility of digital methods for monitoring outcomes and delivering psychological interventions , but it will also be important to understand what accommodations are most effective at helping patients and their families’ access and engage with care.
In summary, ADHD is an important disorder to treat and manage over time, in relation to core symptoms, co-occurring problems, and improvement of real-world outcomes. Clinicians should be robust in expecting substantial improvement with evidence-based treatment but should undertake this in partnership and with a focus on outcomes that are meaningful for patients.
Availability of data and materials
This guidance represents a synthesis of previously collected data. There are no previously unpublished data included.
American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition, DSM-5. American Psychiatric Publishing, Washington, DC
Polanczyk G, de Lima MS, Horta BL, Biederman J, Rohde LA (2007) The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: a systematic review and metaregression analysis. Am J Psychiatry 164(6):942–948
Fayyad J, Sampson NA, Hwang I, Adamowski T, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Al-Hamzawi A et al (2017) The descriptive epidemiology of DSM-IV Adult ADHD in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys. Atten Defic Hyperact Disord 9(1):47–65
Hinshaw SP, Scheffler RM (2018) ADHD in the twenty-first century: Biology, context, policy, and the need for integrative perspective. In: Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zuddas A (eds) Oxford textbook of ADHD. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 9–18
Mulraney M, Coghill D (2018) Quality of life and impairment in ADHD. In: Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zuddas A (eds) Oxford textbook of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 161–169
Coghill D, Hodgkins P (2016) Health-related quality of life of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder versus children with diabetes and healthy controls. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 25(3):261–271
Able SL, Johnston JA, Adler LA, Swindle RW (2007) Functional and psychosocial impairment in adults with undiagnosed ADHD. Psychol Med 37(1):97–107
Ertan C, Ozcan OO, Pepele MS (2012) Paediatric trauma patients and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: correlation and significance. Emerg Med J 29(11):911–914
Ruiz-Goikoetxea M, Cortese S, Magallon S, Aznarez-Sanado M, Alvarez Zallo N, Luis EO et al (2018) Risk of poisoning in children and adolescents with ADHD: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep 8(1):7584
Ostergaard SD, Dalsgaard S, Faraone SV, Munk-Olsen T, Laursen TM (2017) Teenage Parenthood and Birth Rates for Individuals With and Without Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Nationwide Cohort Study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 56(7):578–84 e3
Barkley RA, Fischer M, Edelbrock C, Smallish L (1991) The adolescent outcome of hyperactive children diagnosed by research criteria—III. Mother-child interactions, family conflicts and maternal psychopathology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 32(2):233–255
Young S, Moss D, Sedgwick O, Fridman M, Hodgkins P (2015) A meta-analysis of the prevalence of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in incarcerated populations. Psychol Med 45(2):247–258
Bolte S, Poustka L, Geurts H (2018) Austism spectrum disorder. In: Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zuddas A (eds) Oxford teaxtbook of ADHD. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 227–234
Hollis C, Pennant M, Cuenca J, Glazebrook C, Kendall T, Whittington C et al (2016) Clinical effectiveness and patient perspectives of different treatment strategies for tics in children and adolescents with Tourette syndrome: a systematic review and qualitative analysis. Health Technol Assess 20(4):1–450
Simonoff E (2018) Intelectual impairment and neurogenetic disorders. In: Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zuddas A (eds) Oxford teaxtbook of ADHD. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 235–246
Thapar A, van Goozen S (2018) Conduct disorder in ADHD. In: Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zuddas A (eds) Oxford teaxtbook of ADHD. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 193–200
Oxley C, Stringaris A (2018) Comorbidity: depression and anxiety. In: Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zuddas A (eds) Oxford textbook of ADHD. Oxford University Press, Oxfiord, pp 206–214
Lecendreux M, Cortese S (2007) Sleep problems associated with ADHD: a review of current therapeutic options and recommendations for the future. Expert Rev Neurother 7(12):1799–1806
Wilens T, Carrellas N, Biederman J (2018) ADHD and substance misuse. In: Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zuddas A (eds) Oxford teaxtbook of ADHD. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 215–226
Philipsen A (2006) Differential diagnosis and comorbidity of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and borderline personality disorder (BPD) in adults. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci 256(Suppl 1):i42–i46
Williams AE, Giust JM, Kronenberger WG, Dunn DW (2016) Epilepsy and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: links, risks, and challenges. Neuropsychiatr Dis Treat 12:287–296
Cortese S, Moreira Maia CR, Rohde LA, Morcillo-Penalver C, Faraone SV (2014) Prevalence of obesity in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: study protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 4(3):e004541
Cortese S, Sun S, Zhang J, Sharma E, Chang Z, Kuja-Halkola R et al (2018) Association between attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis and a Swedish population-based study. Lancet Psychiatry 5(9):717–726
Economics DA (2019) the Social and Economic costs of ADHD in Australia. Australian ADHD Professionals Association, Melbourne
Cortese S, Adamo N, Del Giovane C, Mohr-Jensen C, Hayes AJ, Carucci S et al (2018) Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 5(9):727–738
Sonuga-Barke EJ, Brandeis D, Cortese S, Daley D, Ferrin M, Holtmann M et al (2013) Nonpharmacological interventions for ADHD: systematic review and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials of dietary and psychological treatments. Am J Psychiatry 170(3):275–289
Swanson JM, Arnold LE, Jensen P, Hinshaw SP, Hechtman LT, Conners CK et al (2018) Long- term outcomes in the Multimodal Treatment study of Children with ADHD (the MTA): from beginning to end. In: Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zuddas A (eds) The Oxford textbook of ADHD. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 315–332
Coghill D (2019) Debate: are stimulant medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder effective in the long term? (For). J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 58(10):938–939
Posner J, Kass E, Hulvershorn L (2014) Using stimulants to treat ADHD-related emotional lability. Curr Psychiatry Rep 16(10):478
Lichtenstein P, Halldner L, Zetterqvist J, Sjolander A, Serlachius E, Fazel S et al (2012) Medication for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and criminality. N Engl J Med 367(21):2006–2014
Chang Z, Quinn PD, Hur K, Gibbons RD, Sjolander A, Larsson H et al (2017) Association between medication use for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk of motor vehicle crashes. JAMA Psychiat 74(6):597–603
Chang Z, Ghirardi L, Quinn PD, Asherson P, D’Onofrio BM, Larsson H (2019) Risks and benefits of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder medication on behavioral and neuropsychiatric outcomes: a qualitative review of pharmacoepidemiology studies using linked prescription databases. Biol Psychiatry 86(5):335–343
Caye A, Swanson J, Thapar A, Sibley M, Arseneault L, Hechtman L et al (2016) Life span studies of ADHD-conceptual challenges and predictors of persistence and outcome. Curr Psychiatry Rep 18(12):111
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD et al (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928
Guyatt GH, Oxman A, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Schunemann HJ (2008) GRADE: what is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians? BMJ 336:995–998
Storebo OJ, Krogh HB, Ramstad E, Moreira-Maia CR, Holmskov M, Skoog M et al (2015) Methylphenidate for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: Cochrane systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses of randomised clinical trials. BMJ 351:h5203
Montgomery P, Grant S, Mayo-Wilson E, Macdonald G, Michie S, Hopewell S et al (2018) Reporting randomised trials of social and psychological interventions: the CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension. Trials 19(1):407
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (2018) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management: update. Department of Health
NICE (2019) Hypertension in adults: diagnosis and management (NG 136). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London
NICE (2017) Asthma: diagnosis, monitoring and chronic asthma management (NG 80). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
NICE (2018) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London
Cortese S, Ferrin M, Brandeis D, Buitelaar J, Daley D, Dittmann RW et al (2015) Cognitive training for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: meta-analysis of clinical and neuropsychological outcomes from randomized controlled trials. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 54(3):164–174
Cortese S, Ferrin M, Brandeis D, Holtmann M, Aggensteiner P, Daley D et al (2016) Neurofeedback for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: meta-analysis of clinical and neuropsychological outcomes from randomized controlled trials. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 55(6):444–455
Daley D, van der Oord S, Ferrin M, Danckaerts M, Doepfner M, Cortese S et al (2014) Behavioral interventions in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials across multiple outcome domains. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 53(8):835–847
Stevenson J, Buitelaar J, Cortese S, Ferrin M, Konofal E, Lecendreux M et al (2014) Research review: the role of diet in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder—an appraisal of the evidence on efficacy and recommendations on the design of future studies. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 55(5):416–427
Cortese S (2019) Debate: are stimulant medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder effective in the long term? J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 58(10):936
Swanson JM (2019) Debate: are stimulant medications for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder effective in the long term? (against). J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 58(10):936–938
Buitelaar JK, Michelson D, Danckaerts M, Gillberg C, Spencer TJ, Zuddas A et al (2007) A randomized, double-blind study of continuation treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder after 1 year. Biol Psychiatry 61(5):694–699
Coghill DR, Banaschewski T, Lecendreux M, Johnson M, Zuddas A, Anderson CS et al (2014) Maintenance of efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: randomized-withdrawal study design. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 53(6):647–657
Newcorn JH, Harpin V, Huss M, Lyne A, Sikirica V, Johnson M et al (2016) Extended-release guanfacine hydrochloride in 6–17-year olds with ADHD: a randomised-withdrawal maintenance of efficacy study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 57(6):717–728
Matthijssen AM, Dietrich A, Bierens M, Kleine Deters R, van de Loo-Neus GHH, van den Hoofdakker BJ et al (2019) Continued benefits of methylphenidate in ADHD after 2 years in clinical practice: a randomized placebo-controlled discontinuation study. Am J Psychiatry 176(9):754–762
Banaschewski T, Buitelaar J, Coghill DR, Sergeant JA, Sonuga-Barke E, Zuddas A et al (2009) The MTA at 8. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 48(11):1120–1121 (author reply 3-4)
Gerlach M, Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Rohde LA, Romanos M (2017) What are the benefits of methylphenidate as a treatment for children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder? Attent Deficit Hyperact Dis 9(1):1–3
Coghill DR, Banaschewski T, Nagy P, Otero IH, Soutullo C, Yan B et al (2017) Long-term safety and efficacy of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in children and adolescents with ADHD: A Phase IV, 2-year. Open Label Study Eur CNS Drugs 31(7):625–638
Klatte R, Strauss B, Fluckiger C, Rosendahl J (2018) Adverse effects of psychotherapy: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 7(1):135
Allan A, Chacko A (2018) Adverse events in behavioral parent training for children with ADHD: an under-appreciated phenomenon. ADHD Rep 26:4–9
Sonuga-Barke EJ (2016) Can medication effects be determined using national registry data? A cautionary reflection on risk of bias in “big data” analytics. Biol Psychiatry 80(12):893–895
Lichtenstein P, Larsson H (2013) Medication for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder and criminality. N Engl J Med 368(8):776
Mohr-Jensen C, Muller Bisgaard C, Boldsen SK, Steinhausen HC (2019) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in childhood and adolescence and the risk of crime in young adulthood in a Danish nationwide study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 58(4):443–452
Chang Z, Lichtenstein P, Langstrom N, Larsson H, Fazel S (2016) Association between prescription of major psychotropic medications and violent reoffending after prison release. JAMA 316(17):1798–1807
Chang Z, D’Onofrio BM, Quinn PD, Lichtenstein P, Larsson H (2016) Medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk for depression: a nationwide longitudinal cohort study. Biol Psychiat 80(12):916–922
Man KKC, Coghill D, Chan EW, Lau WCY, Hollis C, Liddle E et al (2017) Association of risk of suicide attempts with methylphenidate treatment. JAMA Psychiat 74(10):1048–1055
Chen Q, Sjolander A, Runeson B, D’Onofrio BM, Lichtenstein P, Larsson H (2014) Drug treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and suicidal behaviour: register based study. BMJ 348:g3769
Quinn PD, Chang Z, Hur K, Gibbons RD, Lahey BB, Rickert ME et al (2017) ADHD medication and substance-related problems. Am J Psychiatry 174(9):877–885
Steinhausen HC, Bisgaard C (2014) Substance use disorders in association with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, co-morbid mental disorders, and medication in a nationwide sample. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 24(2):232–241
Man KK, Coghill D, Chan EW, Lau WC, Hollis C, Liddle E et al (2016) Methylphenidate and the risk of psychotic disorders and hallucinations in children and adolescents in a large health system. Transl Psychiatry 6(11):e956
Ghirardi L, Chen Q, Chang Z, Kuja-Halkola R, Skoglund C, Quinn PD et al (2020) Use of medication for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and risk of unintentional injuries in children and adolescents with co-occurring neurodevelopmental disorders. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 61(2):140–147
Ghirardi L, Larsson H, Chang Z, Chen Q, Quinn PD, Hur K et al (2019) Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Medication and Unintentional Injuries in Children and Adolescents. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2019.06.010
Raman SR, Marshall SW, Haynes K, Gaynes BN, Naftel AJ, Sturmer T (2013) Stimulant treatment and injury among children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: an application of the self-controlled case series study design. Inj Prev 19(3):164–170
Mikolajczyk R, Horn J, Schmedt N, Langner I, Lindemann C, Garbe E (2015) Injury prevention by medication among children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a case-only study. JAMA Pediatr 169(4):391–395
Man KK, Chan EW, Coghill D, Douglas I, Ip P, Leung LP et al (2015) Methylphenidate and the risk of trauma. Pediatrics 135(1):40–48
Dalsgaard S, Leckman JF, Mortensen PB, Nielsen HS, Simonsen M (2015) Effect of drugs on the risk of injuries in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry 2(8):702–709
Chang Z, Lichtenstein P, D’Onofrio BM, Sjolander A, Larsson H (2014) Serious transport accidents in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and the effect of medication: a population-based study. JAMA Psychiat 71(3):319–325
Jangmo A, Stalhandske A, Chang Z, Chen Q, Almqvist C, Feldman I et al (2019) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, school performance, and effect of medication. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 58(4):423–432
Lu Y, Sjolander A, Cederlof M, D’Onofrio BM, Almqvist C, Larsson H et al (2017) Association between medication use and performance on higher education entrance tests in individuals with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. JAMA Psychiat 74(8):815–822
Kanters S, Ford N, Druyts E, Thorlund K, Mills EJ, Bansback N (2016) Use of network meta-analysis in clinical guidelines. Bull World Health Organ 94(10):782–784
Del Giovane C, Cortese S, Cipriani A (2019) Combining pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions in network meta-analysis in psychiatry. JAMA Psychiat 76:867–868
Wong ICK, Banaschewski T, Buitelaar J, Cortese S, Dopfner M, Simonoff E et al (2019) Emerging challenges in pharmacotherapy research on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder-outcome measures beyond symptom control and clinical trials. Lancet Psychiatry 6(6):528–537
Cortese S, Holtmann M, Banaschewski T, Buitelaar J, Coghill D, Danckaerts M et al (2013) Practitioner review: current best practice in the management of adverse events during treatment with ADHD medications in children and adolescents. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 54(3):227–246
Arns M, Strehl U (2013) Evidence for efficacy of neurofeedback in ADHD? Am J Psychiatry 170(7):799–800
Sonuga-Barke E, Brandeis D, Cortese S, Daley D, Danckaerts M, Dopfner M et al (2013) Response to Chronis-Tuscano et al. and Arns and Strehl. Am J Psychiatry 170(7):800–802
Micoulaud-Franchi JA, Salvo F, Bioulac S, Fovet T (2016) Neurofeedback in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: efficacy. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 55(12):1091–1092
Simkin DR, Arnold LE, Lubar J (2016) Neurofeedback in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: evaluation difficulties. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 55(12):1090–1091
Cortese S, Brandeis D, Holtmann M, Sonuga-Barke EJ, European AGG (2016) The European ADHD guidelines group replies. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 55(12):1092–1093
Bussalb A, Congedo M, Barthelemy Q, Ojeda D, Acquaviva E, Delorme R et al (2019) Clinical and experimental factors influencing the efficacy of neurofeedback in ADHD: a meta-analysis. Front Psychiatry Front Res Found 10:35
Strehl U, Aggensteiner P, Wachtlin D, Brandeis D, Albrecht B, Arana M et al (2017) Neurofeedback of slow cortical potentials in children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a multicenter randomized trial controlling for unspecific effects. Front Hum Neurosci 11:135
Excellence (2018) NIfHaC. Attention defificit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management
(DGKJP) DGfK-uJPuP, (DGPPN) DGfPuPPuN, (DGPSJ) DGfSuJ (2018) Langfassung der interdisziplinären evidenz- und konsensbasierten (S3) Leitlinie „Aufmerksamkeitsdefizit-/Hyperaktivitätsstörung (ADHS) im Kindes-, Jugend- und Erwachsenenalter”
Zorgstandaard ADHD (2019) Amsterdam: GGZ Standaarden. www.ggzstandaarden.nl/zorgstandaarden/adhd
TDAH (2017) GdtdlGdPCslITeeTpDdAcH. Guía de Práctica Clínica sobre las Intervenciones Terapéuticas en el Trastorno por Déficit de Atención con Hiperactividad (TDAH). Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad., (IACS) IAdCdlS
Wolraich ML, Hagan JF Jr, Allan C, Chan E, Davison D, Earls M et al (2019) Clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis, evaluation, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. Pediatrics. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2528
Brouwers MC, Kho ME, Browman GP, Burgers JS, Cluzeau F, Feder G et al (2010) AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting, and evaluation in health care. Prev Med 51(5):421–424
Bachmann CJ, Roessner V, Glaeske G, Hoffmann F (2014) Trends in psychopharmacologic treatment of tic disorders in children and adolescents in Germany. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 24:199–207
Libutzki B, Ludwig S, May M, Jacobsen RH, Reif A, Hartman CA (2019) Direct medical costs of ADHD and its comorbid conditions on basis of a claims data analysis. Eur Psychiatry 58:38–44
Akmatov MK, Steffen A, Holstiege J, Hering R, Schulz M, Batzing J (2018) Trends and regional variations in the administrative prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder among children and adolescents in Germany. Sci Rep 8(1):17029
Holden SE, Jenkins-Jones S, Poole CD, Morgan CL, Coghill D, Currie CJ (2013) The prevalence and incidence, resource use and financial costs of treating people with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the United Kingdom (1998 to 2010). Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 7(1):34
Alliance CAR (2018) Canadian ADHD Practice Guidelines. Fourth Edition. Canadian ADHD Resource Alliance
Group M (1999) A 14-month randomized clinical trial of treatment strategies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. The MTA cooperative group. Multimodal treatment study of children with ADHD. Arch Gen Psychiatry 56(12):1073–1086
Coghill D, Seth S (2015) Effective management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) through structured re-assessment: the Dundee ADHD clinical care pathway. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 9:52
Fernandez de la Cruz L, Simonoff E, Halperin JM, Eugene Arnold L, Stringaris A (2015) Treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and irritability: Results from the multimodal treatment study of children with ADHD (MTA). J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 54(1):62–70
Jensen PS (1999) A 14-month randomized clinical trial of treatment strategies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 56(12):1073–1086
Boland H, DiSalvo M, Fried R, Woodworth KY, Wilens T, Faraone SV et al (2020) A literature review and meta-analysis on the effects of ADHD medications on functional outcomes. J Psychiatr Res 123:21–30
Cortese S, Adamo N, Del Giovane C, Mohr-Jensen C, Hayes AJ, Carucci S et al (2018) Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30269-4
Aggensteiner PM, Brandeis D, Millenet S, Hohmann S, Ruckes C, Beuth S et al (2019) Slow cortical potentials neurofeedback in children with ADHD: comorbidity, self-regulation and clinical outcomes 6 months after treatment in a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 28(8):1087–1095
Coghill DR, Hayward D, Rhodes SM, Grimmer C, Matthews K (2014) A longitudinal examination of neuropsychological and clinical functioning in boys with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): improvements in executive functioning do not explain clinical improvement. Psychol Med 44(5):1087–1099
Ferrin M, Taylor E (2011) Child and caregiver issues in treatment of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder: education, adherence and treatment choice. Future Neurol 6:399–413
Schatz NK, Fabiano GA, Cunningham CE, dosReis S, Waschbusch DA, Jerome S et al (2015) Systematic review of patients’ and parents’ preferences for ADHD treatment options and processes of care. Patient 8(6):483–497
Tully LA, Hawes DJ, Doyle FL, Sawyer MG, Dadds MR (2019) A national child mental health literacy initiative is needed to reduce childhood mental health disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 53(4):286–290
Hospital TRCs (2017) RCH National Child Health Poll. Poll 8. Child mental health problems: Can parents spot the signs?
NICE (2018) Attention defificit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management: NICE guideline 87. London
Eke H, Ford T, Newlove-Delgado T, Price A, Young S, Ani C et al (2019) Transition between child and adult services for young people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): findings from a British national surveillance study. Br J Psychiatry 217:1–7
Trochetto de Oliveira C, Dias A (2018) Psychoeducation for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder: what, how and who shall we inform? Trends Psychol 26(1):263–281
Ferrin M, Perez-Ayala V, El-Abd S, Lax-Pericall T, Jacobs B, Bilbow A et al (2016) A randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a psychoeducation program for families of children and adolescents with ADHD in the UK: results after a 6-month follow-up. J Atten Disord 24(5):768–779
Fortney JC, Unutzer J, Wrenn G, Pyne JM, Smith GR, Schoenbaum M et al (2017) A tipping point for measurement-based care. Psychiatr Serv 68(2):179–188
Adamo N, Seth S, Coghill D (2015) Pharmacological treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: assessing outcomes. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 8(4):383–397
Caye A, Swanson JM, Coghill D, Rohde LA (2018) Treatment strategies for ADHD: an evidence-based guide to select optimal treatment. Mol Psychiatry 24(3):390–408
Pelham WE Jr, Fabiano GA, Waxmonsky JG, Greiner AR, Gnagy EM, Pelham WE 3rd et al (2016) Treatment sequencing for childhood ADHD: a multiple-randomization study of adaptive medication and behavioral interventions. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 45(4):396–415
Nobel E, Hoekstra PJ, Agnes Brunnekreef J, Messink-de Vries DEH, Fischer B, Emmelkamp PMG et al (2019) Home-based parent training for school-aged children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and behavior problems with remaining impairing disruptive behaviors after routine treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 29(3):395–440
Dopfner M, Hautmann C, Dose C, Banaschewski T, Becker K, Brandeis D et al (2017) ESCAschool study: trial protocol of an adaptive treatment approach for school-age children with ADHD including two randomised trials. BMC Psychiatry 17(1):269
Zinnow T, Banaschewski T, Fallgatter AJ, Jenkner C, Philipp-Wiegmann F, Philipsen A et al (2018) ESCAlate—adaptive treatment approach for adolescents and adults with ADHD: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 19(1):280
Geissler J, Jans T, Banaschewski T, Becker K, Renner T, Brandeis D et al (2018) Individualised short-term therapy for adolescents impaired by attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder despite previous routine care treatment (ESCAadol)-Study protocol of a randomised controlled trial within the consortium ESCAlife. Trials 19(1):254
Becker K, Banaschewski T, Brandeis D, Dose C, Hautmann C, Holtmann M et al (2020) Individualised stepwise adaptive treatment for 3-6-year-old preschool children impaired by attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ESCApreschool): study protocol of an adaptive intervention study including two randomised controlled trials within the consortium ESCAlife. Trials 21(1):56
Barbaresi WJ, Campbell L, Diekroger EA, Froehlich TE, Liu YH, O’Malley E et al (2020) Society for developmental and behavioral pediatrics clinical practice guideline for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with complex attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Dev Behav Pediatr 41(Suppl 2S):S35–S57
Coghill D, Danckaerts M (2018) Organizing and delivering treatment for ADHD. In: Banaschewski T, Coghill D, Zuddas A (eds) Oxford textbook for ADHD. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 417–425
Kooij SJ, Bejerot S, Blackwell A, Caci H, Casas-Brugue M, Carpentier PJ et al (2010) European consensus statement on diagnosis and treatment of adult ADHD: the European network Adult ADHD. BMC Psychiatry 10:67
Katzman MA, Bilkey TS, Chokka PR, Fallu A, Klassen LJ (2017) Adult ADHD and comorbid disorders: clinical implications of a dimensional approach. BMC Psychiatry 17(1):302
Hinshaw SP (2007) Moderators and mediators of treatment outcome for youth with ADHD: understanding for whom and how interventions work. J Pediatr Psychol 32(6):664–675
van Emmerik-van OK, Vedel E, Kramer FJ, Blankers M, Dekker JJM, van den Brink W et al (2019) Integrated cognitive behavioral therapy for ADHD in adult substance use disorder patients: results of a randomized clinical trial. Drug Alcohol Depend 197:28–36
Coles EK, Pelham Iii WE, Fabiano GA, Gnagy EM, Burrows-MacLean L, Wymbs BT et al (2019) Randomized trial of first-line behavioral intervention to reduce need for medication in children with ADHD. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol 49:1–15
Van der Oord S, Prins PJ, Oosterlaan J, Emmelkamp PM (2008) Efficacy of methylphenidate, psychosocial treatments and their combination in school-aged children with ADHD: a meta-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 28(5):783–800
Catala-Lopez F, Hutton B, Nunez-Beltran A, Mayhew AD, Page MJ, Ridao M et al (2015) The pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Syst Rev 4:19
Bernard S, Turk J (2009) Developing mental health services for children and adolescents with learning disabilities: a toolkit for clinicians. Royal College of Psychiatrists, London
Evans SW, Owens JS, Mautone JA, DuPaul GJ, Power TJ (2014) Toward a comprehensive, life course model of care for youth with ADHD. In: Weist M, Lever C, Bradshaw C, Owens J (eds) Handbook of school mental health, 2nd edn. Springer, New York, pp 413–426
Evans SW, Serpell ZN, Schultz B, Pastor D (2007) Cumulative benefits of secondary school-based treatment of students with ADHD. School Psych Rev 36:256–273
Richardson M, Moore DA, Gwernan-Jones R, Thompson-Coon J, Ukoumunne O, Rogers M et al (2015) Non-pharmacological interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) delivered in school settings: systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative research. Health Technol Assess 19(45):1–470
Kazdin AE (2019) Annual research review: expanding mental health services through novel models of intervention delivery. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 60(4):455–472
Sayal K, Prasad V, Daley D, Ford T, Coghill D (2018) ADHD in children and young people: prevalence, care pathways, and service provision. Lancet Psychiatry 5(2):175–186
Wright N, Moldavsky M, Schneider J, Chakrabarti I, Coates J, Daley D et al (2015) Practitioner review: pathways to care for ADHD—a systematic review of barriers and facilitators. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 56(6):598–617
Kim WJ, American Academy of C, Adolescent Psychiatry Task Force on Workforce N (2003) Child and adolescent psychiatry workforce: a critical shortage and national challenge. Acad Psychiatry 27(4):277–282
RCPSYCH (2019) Children and youngpeople with mental healthproblems and access to NHS treatments. Royal college of Psychiatrists, London
Kazdin AE (2017) Addressing the treatment gap: a key challenge for extending evidence-based psychosocial interventions. Behav Res Ther 88:7–18
Chacko A, Scavenius C (2018) Bending the curve: a community-based behavioral parent training model to address ADHD-related concerns in the voluntary sector in Denmark. J Abnorm Child Psychol 46(3):505–517
Myers K, Vander Stoep A, Zhou C, McCarty CA, Katon W (2015) Effectiveness of a telehealth service delivery model for treating attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a community-based randomized controlled trial. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 54(4):263–274
Pfiffner L, DuPaul G (2015) Treatment of ADHD in School Settings. In: Barkley R (ed) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a handbook for diagnosis and treatment. The Guilford Press, New York, NY, pp 596–629
Sayal K, Merrell C, Tymms P, Kasim A (2015) Academic Outcomes Following a School-Based RCT for ADHD: 6-Year Follow-Up. J Atten Disord 24(1):66–72
Hollis C, Falconer CJ, Martin JL, Whittington C, Stockton S, Glazebrook C et al (2017) Annual research review: digital health interventions for children and young people with mental health problems—a systematic and meta-review. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 58(4):474–503
No funding was sought for the work described in this guidance.
Conflict of interest
SC reports honoraria and reimbursement for talks on ADHD from the Association of Child and Adolescent Mental Health, British Association of Psychopharmacology, and the Canadian ADHD Resource Alliance and Healthcare Convention. PA reports honoraria for consultancy to Shire/Takeda, Eli Lilly, and Novartis; educational and research awards from Shire, Lilly, Novartis, Vifor Pharma, GW Pharma, and QbTech; and speaking at sponsored events for Shire, Lilly, Flynn Pharma, and Novartis. ES-B reports personal fees from Shire and Neurotech Solutions. TB reports personal fees for being on the advisory board from ADHS digital, Infectopharm, Lundbeck, Medice, Neurim Pharmaceuticals, Oberberg GmbH, Roche, and Takeda. He received conference support or speaker’s fee by Medice and Takeda. He received royalities from Hogrefe, Kohlhammer, CIP Medien, Oxford University Press, outside the submitted work. DB is an unpaid scientific advisor for an EU-funded Neurofeedback trial. JB reports personal fees for lectures from Janssen, Takeda/Shire, and Medice; and personal fees for being on the advisory board from Roche, Medice, Servier, and Angelini, outside the submitted work. DC reports grants and personal fees from Shire and Takeda, and personal fees from Medice, Servier, and Oxford University Press, outside the submitted work. DD reports grants, personal fees, and non-financial support from Shire/Takeda, personal fees and non-financial support from Eli Lilly and Medice, non-financial support from Qb Tech, book royalties from Hachette, and training and supervision fees from the New Forest Parent Training Programme, outside the submitted work. RWD has received compensation for serving as consultant or speaker, or he or the institution he works for have received research support or royalties from the following organizations or companies: EU (FP7 Programme), US National Institute of Mental Health, German Federal Ministry of Health/Regulatory Agency, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, German Research Foundation, Volkswagen Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim, Ferring, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly, Lundbeck, Otsuka, Servier, Shire, Sunovion/Takeda, and Theravance. He was an employee of Eli Lilly in clinical CNS research until August 2008, and owns Eli Lilly stock (small part of the respective annual salary). The drug marketed by Eli Lilly is not mentioned in this guidance. MDo reports grants and personal fees from Eli Lilly, Medice, Shire, Janssen Cilag, Takeda, and Vifor; grants from the German Research Foundation, German Ministry of Health, and Innovation Fund; personal fees from the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians in Germany, Beltz Publisher, Elsevier, Guilford, Hogrefe, Springer, Wiley, Kohlhammer, and Schattauer. MF reports fees for lectures from Medice and ROVI. CH was an expert member of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Guideline (NG87): Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management, published in 2018. MH reports personal fees from Medice, Shire, Takeda, Neuroconn, and Hogrefe, outside the submitted work. EK is CSO and Board Member of NLS Pharmaceutics, investigating drugs that are not mentioned in the current guidance. PS reports speaker’s fees paid to his department; and is the CEO and shareholder of HealthTracker Ltd, which is unrelated to the submitted work. CS reports non-personal research funds from Lundbeck and Shire paid to his institution; is a consultant and advisory board member of Editorial Médica Panamericana, Medice, NeuroTech Solutions Ltd, and Shire; received speaker’s bureau from Medice and Shire, and royalties from Editorial Médica Panamericana, Mayo Ediciones, and Springer SBM Spain. H-CS reports speaker’s fees from Medice and book royalties from Cambridge University Press, Elsevier, Hogrefe, Huber, Klett, and Kohlhammer. IW reports grants from Research Grant Council Hong Kong; personal fees from Medice; and grants and personal fees from Janssen, outside the submitted work. AZ reports personal fees for being on advisory boards from Angelini, Edu Pharma, and Shire-Takeda; research grants from Angelini, Janssen, Lundbeck, Otsuka, and Servier; and royalties from Giunti OS and Oxford University Press, outside the submitted work. All other authors declare no competing interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Coghill, D., Banaschewski, T., Cortese, S. et al. The management of ADHD in children and adolescents: bringing evidence to the clinic: perspective from the European ADHD Guidelines Group (EAGG). Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 32, 1337–1361 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01871-x