A systematic meta-review of systematic reviews on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

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

Long term outcomes and causal modelling of compulsory inpatient and outpatient mental health care using Norwegian registry data: Protocol for a controversies in psychiatry research project.

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

The relationship between area levels of involuntary psychiatric care and patient outcomes: a longitudinal national register study from Norway.

BACKGROUND: Mental health legislation permits involuntary care of patients with severe mental disorders who meet set legal criteria. The Norwegian Mental Health Act assumes this will improve health and reduce risk of deterioration and death. Professionals have warned against potentially adverse effects of recent initiatives to heighten involuntary care thresholds, but no studies have investigated whether high thresholds have adverse effects. AIM: To test the hypothesis that areas with lower levels of involuntary care show higher levels of morbidity and mortality in their severe mental disorder populations over time compared to areas with higher levels. Data availability precluded analyses of the effect on health and safety of others. METHODS: Using national data, we calculated standardized (by age, sex, and urbanicity) involuntary care ratios across Community Mental Health Center areas in Norway. For patients diagnosed with severe mental disorders (ICD10 F20-31), we tested whether lower area ratios in 2015 was associated with 1) case fatality over four years, 2) an increase in inpatient days, and 3) time to first episode of involuntary care over the following two years. We also assessed 4) whether area ratios in 2015 predicted an increase in the number of patients diagnosed with F20-31 in the subsequent two years and whether 5) standardized involuntary care area ratios in 2014-2017 predicted an increase in the standardized suicide ratios in 2014-2018. Analyses were prespecified (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04655287). RESULTS: We found no adverse effects on patients' health in areas with lower standardized involuntary care ratios. The standardization variables age, sex, and urbanicity explained 70.5% of the variance in raw rates of involuntary care. CONCLUSIONS: Lower standardized involuntary care ratios are not associated with adverse effects for patients with severe mental disorders in Norway. This finding merits further research of the way involuntary care works.

Impact of introducing capacity-based mental health legislation on the use of community treatment orders in Norway: case registry study.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, a capacity-based criterion was added to the Norwegian Mental Health Act, stating that those with capacity to consent to treatment cannot be subjected to involuntary care unless there is risk to themselves or others. This was expected to reduce incidence and prevalence rates, and the duration of episodes of involuntary care, in particular regarding community treatment orders (CTOs). AIMS: The aim was to investigate whether the capacity-based criterion had the expected impact on the use of CTOs. METHOD: This retrospective case register study included two catchment areas serving 16% of the Norwegian population (aged ≥18). In total, 760 patients subject to 921 CTOs between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2019 were included to compare the use of CTOs 2 years before and 2 years after the legal reform. RESULTS: CTO incidence rates and duration did not change after the reform, whereas prevalence rates were significantly reduced. This was explained by a sharp increase in termination of CTOs in the year of the reform, after which it reduced and settled on a slightly higher leven than before the reform. We found an unexpected significant increase in the use of involuntary treatment orders for patients on CTOs after the reform. CONCLUSIONS: The expected impact on CTO use of introducing a capacity-based criterion in the Norwegian Mental Health Act was not confirmed by our study. Given the existing challenges related to defining and assessing decision-making capacity, studies examining the validity of capacity assessments and their impact on the use of coercion in clinical practice are urgently needed.

Service Characteristics and Geographical Variation in Compulsory Hospitalisation: An Exploratory Random Effects Within-Between Analysis of Norwegian Municipalities, 2015-2018.

Background: Compulsory hospitalisation in mental healthcare is contested. For ethical and legal reasons, it should only be used as a last resort. Geographical variation could indicate that some areas employ compulsory hospitalisation more frequently than is strictly necessary. Explaining variation in compulsory hospitalisation might contribute to reducing overuse, but research on associations with service characteristics remains patchy. Objectives: We aimed to investigate the associations between the levels of compulsory hospitalisation and the characteristics of primary mental health services in Norway between 2015 and 2018 and the amount of variance explained by groups of explanatory variables. Methods: We applied random-effects within-between Poisson regression of 461 municipalities/city districts, nested within 72 community mental health centre catchment areas (N = 1,828 municipality-years). Results: More general practitioners, mental health nurses, and the total labour-years in municipal mental health and addiction services per population are associated with lower levels of compulsory hospitalisations within the same areas, as measured by both persons (inpatients) and events (hospitalisations). Areas that, on average, have more general practitioners and public housing per population have lower levels of compulsory hospitalisation, while higher levels of compulsory hospitalisation are seen in areas with a longer history of supported employment and the systematic gathering of service users' experiences. In combination, all the variables, including the control variables, could account for 39-40% of the variation, with 5-6% related to municipal health services. Conclusion: Strengthening primary mental healthcare by increasing the number of general practitioners and mental health workers can reduce the use of compulsory hospitalisation and improve the quality of health services.

The Introduction of Medication-Free Mental Health Services in Norway: An Analysis of the Framing and Impact of Arguments From Different Standpoints.

Introduction: Debates about coercive practices have challenged a traditional biomedical hegemony in mental health care. The perspectives of service user organizations have gained considerable ground, such as in the development of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Such changes are often contested, and might in practice be a result of (implicit) negotiation between stakeholders with different discursive positions. To improve understanding of such processes, and how discursive positions may manifest and interact, we analyzed texts published over a 10 year period related to the introduction of medication-free inpatient services in Norway. Methods: We conducted qualitative analyses of 36 policy documents related to the introduction of medication-free services and 75 opinion pieces from a subsequent debate. We examined discursive practices in these texts as expressions of what is perceived as legitimate knowledge upon which to base mental health care from the standpoints of government, user organizations and representatives of the psychiatric profession. We paid particular attention to how standpoints were framed in different discourse surrounding mental health care, and how these interacted and changed during the study period (2008-2018). Results: The analysis shows how elements from the discourse promoted by service user organizations-most notably the legitimacy of personal experiences as a legitimate source of knowledge-entered the mainstream by being incorporated into public policy. Strong reactions to this shift, firmly based in biomedical discourse, endorsed evidence-based medicine as the authoritative source of knowledge to ensure quality care, although accepting patient involvement. Involuntary medication, and how best to help those with non-response to antipsychotic medication represented a point at which discursive positions seemed irreconcilable. Conclusion: The relative authorities of different sources of knowledge remain an area of contention, and especially in determining how best to help patients who do not benefit from antipsychotics. Future non-inferiority trials of medication-free services may go some way to break this discursive deadlock.

Measuring the level of compulsory hospitalisation in mental health care: The performance of different measures across areas and over time.

OBJECTIVE: A variety of measures are used for reporting levels of compulsory psychiatric hospitalisation. This complicates comparisons between studies and makes it hard to establish the extent of geographic variation. We aimed to investigate how measures based on events, individuals and duration portray geographical variation differently and perform over time, how they correlate and how well they predict future ranked levels of compulsory hospitalisation. METHODS: Small-area analysis, correlation analysis and linear regressions of data from a Norwegian health registry containing whole population data from 2014 to 2018. RESULTS: The average compulsory hospitalisation rate per 100,000 inhabitant was 5.6 times higher in the highest area, compared to the lowest, while the difference for the compulsory inpatient rate was 3.2. Population rates based on inpatients correlate strongly with rates of compulsory hospitalisations (r = 0.88) and duration (r = 0.78). 68%-81% of ranked compulsory hospitalisation rates could be explained by each area's rank the previous year. CONCLUSION: There are stable differences in service delivery between catchment areas in Norway. In future research, multiple measures of the level of compulsory hospitalisation should ideally be included when investigating geographical variation. It is important that researchers describe accurately the measure upon which their results are based.

Patient-controlled admission contracts: a longitudinal study of patient evaluations.

BACKGROUND: Mental health professionals usually decide patients' access to inpatient care to ensure care based on need and potential benefit. The purpose of the current study is to investigate how patients evaluate admissions under a contract of Patient-Controlled Admissions (PCA), where the patient could initiate 5 day stays at a community mental health center at their own discretion. METHODS: Patients with a PCA contract in 2011 and 2012 were invited to participate in the study. Staff first recorded clinical baseline values for patients. Towards the end of each PCA stay, staff conducted a structured discharge interview of the admission with the patient. A structured follow-up interview evaluating the PCA arrangement 2 years after inclusion was also performed. We report frequencies from data on PCA requests, PCA admissions and the 2 year evaluation interview, and we used multiple regression models to explore predictors of perceived helpfulness and improvement from the PCA admissions. RESULTS: The included patients (n = 74) made 628 requests for PCAs during the 2 years after inclusion, and 507 PCAs took place. The five-day limit could not be upheld in 7.5% of PCAs. Patients rated PCAs as helping considerably (33.1%), a good deal (30.4%) or somewhat (21.1%), and reported feeling considerably (15.2%), a good deal (26.2%) or somewhat (36.3%) better during the admission. Significant predictors of helpfulness and feeling better were socializing more during the stay and reporting higher motivation to get away from a difficult situation or getting to the ward safety and calmness. A diagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum or bipolar disorder and more services from mental health specialist care also predicted feeling better during the PCA. In the two-year follow-up interview, 90% rated themselves as very or quite satisfied, and more than 90% would recommend PCAs to others. CONCLUSIONS: The PCA arrangement was feasible and was frequently utilized by patients. Patients were satisfied with PCAs and the PCA arrangement. These short stays seemed particularly helpful for patients with a more severe diagnosis. Strong patient satisfaction gives reasons for testing and implementing increased patient influence on the mental health admission procedures in the form of PCAs.

When patients decide the admission - a four year pre-post study of changes in admissions and inpatient days following patient controlled admission contracts.

BACKGROUND: Mental health professionals usually decide patients' access to inpatient care to ensure the rational and fair distribution of care based on need and prognosis. The purpose of the current study is to investigate the effects of increasing patients' influence on admission by enabling patients to initiate brief inpatient stays of up to five days at a community mental health center. Patients can initiate admission according to their own discretion, outside the existing referral and gatekeeping system. METHODS: Patient-controlled admission (PCA) contracts were offered to eligible patients for inpatient stays in four community mental health centers in one health trust in Norway. Data on included patients' inpatient stays at any of the hospitals' mental health or addiction wards were collected by hospital electronic journal data extraction specialists for the two years before PCA contracts were introduced and the first two years after PCA contracts were introduced for the included patients. RESULTS: The included patients (n = 57) had 406 PCAs in the two years following signing PCA contracts. When comparing the periods before and after the introduction of the contracts, the total number of admissions increased from 203 to 498 (p < .001), while the number of inpatient days decreased from 7172 to 3178 (p < .001). No significant change in involuntary care was observed. A comparison of box plots of inpatient day use in the eight half-year periods of the study indicates a gradual increase in median inpatient days up to the signing of a PCA contract for the sample, and an abrupt reduction to a stable median level of inpatient days after signing a contract. CONCLUSIONS: The included patients' use of inpatient days changed profoundly after signing PCA contracts, similar to what previous studies of PCAs have indicated. In spite of the marked reductions in inpatient days, the pre-post design makes it impossible to rule out that the reductions were caused by regression toward the mean. No study of PCAs has reported negative effects, indicating that giving patients control over very short admissions is a feasible and potentially positive scheme in mental health care wards.

Out-patient commitment order use in Norway: incidence and prevalence rates, duration and use of mental health services from the Norwegian Outpatient Commitment Study.

BACKGROUND: Norway authorised out-patient commitment in 1961, but there is a lack of representative and complete data on the use of out-patient commitment orders. AIMS: To establish the incidence and prevalence rates on the use of out-patient commitment in Norway, and how these vary across service areas. Further, to study variations in out-patient commitment across service areas, and use of in-patient services before and after implementation of out-patient commitment orders. Finally, to identify determinants for the duration of out-patient commitment orders and time to readmission. METHOD: Retrospective case register study based on medical files of all patients with an out-patient commitment order in 2008-2012 in six catchment areas in Norway, covering one-third of the Norwegian population aged 18 years or more. For a subsample of patients, we recorded use of in-patient care 3 years before and after their first-ever out-patient commitment. RESULTS: Annual incidence varied between 20.7 and 28.4, and prevalence between 36.5 and 48.9, per 100 000 population aged 18 years or above. Rates differed significantly between catchment areas. Mean out-patient commitment duration was 727 days (s.d. = 889). Use of in-patient care decreased significantly in the 3 years after out-patient commitment compared with the 3 years before. Use of antipsychotic medication through the whole out-patient commitment period and fewer in-patient episodes in the 3 years before out-patient commitment predicted longer time to readmission. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanisms behind the pronounced variations in use of out-patient commitment between sites call for further studies. Use of in-patient care was significantly reduced in the 3 years after a first-ever out-patient commitment order was made. DECLARATION OF INTEREST: None.

The use of outpatient commitment in Norway: Who are the patients and what does it involve?

PURPOSE: Despite one of the longest histories of using Outpatient Commitment (OC), little is known about the use in the Norwegian context. Reporting from the Norwegian Outpatient Commitment Study, this article aims to: establish the profile of the OC population in Norway; ascertain the legal justification for the use of OC and what OC involves for patients; investigate possible associations between selected patient and service characteristics and duration of OC, and; explore potential differences based on gender or rurality. METHODS: A retrospective multi-site study, extracting data from the medical records of all patients on OC in six large regional hospitals in 2008-12, with detailed investigation over 36 months of the subsample of patients on first ever OC-order in 2008-09. We use descriptive statistics to establish the profile of the OC population and the legal justification for and the content of OC, and logistic regression to examine factors associated with duration of OC over 36 months. RESULTS: 1414 patients were on OC over the 5 years, and 274 had their first OC in 2008-09. The sample included more men than woman, and three-quarters were diagnosed with schizophrenia. They had long service histories, including involuntary admissions. The legal justification for all OC-orders was the need for treatment, and 18% were additionally justified by dangerousness. The option to initiate OC directly from the community was not used in any of the 274 first ever OC-orders. While 98% of patients were prescribed psychotropic medication, under half had an Involuntary Treatment Order, which under the Norwegian OC regime is required in addition to the OC-order to oblige patients to accept treatment (usually medication). 60% of patients had ≥2 clinical contacts monthly. There were some gender differences in descriptive analyses with men generally being worse off, but no clear pattern in terms of rurality. Patients in the sample had been on OC between one week and 20 years. The median duration of OC over 36 months was 365 days. Three factors contributed to longer duration: the use of the dangerousness criterion; a diagnosis of schizophrenia disorder, and; considerable problems with substance abuse. CONCLUSION: The characteristics of the OC population in Norway are very similar to that reported in other jurisdictions. Medication seems to be the central focus of OC, yet additional Involuntary Treatment Orders are imposed for less than half of patients. While all OC-orders were justified by the need to ensure treatment, risk seems to be a concern for a subgroup of patients who are kept on for longer. How the 2017 amendment to the mental health act, which precludes compulsion for competent patients unless danger is present, will affect OC use, remains to be seen. Further studies should specifically focus on variation in the use of OC, including at the level of individual clinicians.

A cross-sectional study of experienced coercion in adolescent mental health inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Involuntary care and coercive measures are frequently present in mental healthcare for adolescents. The purpose of this study was to examine to what extent adolescents perceive or experience coercion during inpatient mental health care, and to examine predictors of experienced coercion. METHODS: A cross-sectional sample of 96 adolescent inpatients from 10 Norwegian acute and combined (acute and sub-acute) psychiatric wards reported their experienced coercion on Coercion Ladder and the Experienced Coercion Scale in questionnaires. Staff reported use of formal coercion, diagnoses, and psychosocial functioning. We used two tailed t-tests and mixed effects models to analyze the impact from demographics, alliance with parents, use of formal coercion, diagnostic condition, and global psychosocial functioning. RESULTS: High experienced coercion was reported by a third of all patients. In a mixed effects model, being under formal coercion (involuntary admission and / or coercive measures); a worse relationship between patient and parent; and lower psychosocial functioning, significantly predicted higher experienced coercion. Twenty-eight percent of the total sample of patients reported a lack of confidence and trust both in parents and staff. CONCLUSIONS: Roughly one third of patients in the sample reported high experienced coercion. Being under formal coercion was the strongest predictor. The average scores of experienced coercion in subgroups are comparable with adult scores in similar care situations. There was one exception: Adolescents with psychosis reported low experienced coercion and almost all of them were under voluntary care.

The development, validation, and feasibility of the Experienced Coercion Scale.

Existing scales for experienced coercion have limitations. We developed and validated a short self-report form for experienced coercion for use across care settings, care phases, and care measures. In Stage 1, we developed an item pool, based on the literature, patient accounts, interviews, and expert feedback. Stages 2 and 3 consisted of 2 cross-sectional studies, with patients from acute and nonacute inpatient wards, outpatient care, and supported housing. In Stage 2, patients (N = 212) responded to the Coercion Ladder and the experienced coercion items from Stage 1. We selected 20 items for Stage 3 based on item performance in typically coercive versus voluntary care settings, each items' relation to the Coercion Ladder score, and with regard to the component structure from principal component analysis (PCA). In Stage 3, we collected and examined item responses and clinical and coercion data from a new sample of patients (N = 219). We selected 15 items based on factor loadings to form part of the final Experienced Coercion Scale (ECS). The internal consistency was high and score distribution approached the normal curve. ECS sum scores correlated strongly with scores on the Coercion Ladder. In a regression analysis, demographic variables, diagnosis, duration of treatment, and care setting did not predict ECS scores, while legal status and continuing involuntary medication significantly predicted scores. In this initial study, the ECS scores showed promising psychometric properties, suggesting it can be used across care settings and is suitable for research and service evaluation. (PsycINFO Database Record

'It's unbelievably humiliating'-Patients' expressions of negative effects of coercion in mental health care.

PURPOSE: Some patients criticize coercive mental health treatment using extremely strong words. This may be connected to poor therapeutic relationships and unfavourable treatment outcomes, so a better understanding of this criticism is warranted. METHODS: Data consisted of detailed notes from 15 all-day dialogue seminars on coercion and voluntariness in Oslo, Norway from 2006 to 2009. Very dissatisfied patients and ex-patients were a central voice through the seminars. To gain a better understanding of their negative experiences of coercion, we conducted a stepwise qualitative thematic analysis of the seminar notes, with a mix of inductive and deductive coding followed by focused coding and analytic induction. RESULTS: Coercive care was described in strong terms, such as humiliation and Nazism. To explain this, we suggest a model of two pathways towards such strong language: (i) Participants understood their symptoms as mental crises following trauma or spiritual problems, and perceived involuntary medication to harm rather than help. Some found that their complaints were dismissed as lack of insight. (ii) Minor incidents were experienced as coercive, such as being 'defined' by the medical model, receiving repeated negative remarks and feeling one needed to succumb to get care. The accumulated effect could be experienced as eroding self-confidence and trust in their own feelings and thoughts. CONCLUSION: Involuntary medication and dismissal of patient perspective, combined with the accumulated effects of minor negative incidents, can explain the feelings of humiliation, oppression and the use of metaphors such as imprisonment by totalitarian systems. Our model can help explain such patient reactions seen in clinical practice and the literature.