The following is a summary of “Psychoeducation for adult ADHD: a scoping review about characteristics, patient involvement, and content,” published in the January 2024 issue of Psychiatry by Pedersen et al.
While psychosocial interventions like psychoeducation show promise for adult ADHD treatment, a comprehensive review of their effectiveness and content is missing.
Researchers conducted a retrospective study to outline psychoeducation intervention traits for adult ADHD, assess patient involvement, explore covered themes, and define ‘psychoeducation’ within these interventions.
They searched multiple databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, AMED, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The screening process and final study selection involved two or more reviewers. They utilized the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (Supplementary Material 1) to report findings and followed the framework by Arksey and O’Malley as a guide during the scoping process.
The result showed that 2121 records were initially retrieved, and after screening and full-text analysis, 10 studies met the criteria for final analysis. Primarily conducted in Europe, these studies predominantly adopted a group format. 7 key themes emerged, encompassing diagnosis information, treatment options, somatic health, insider perspectives, social aspects, coping skills, and work-related challenges in ADHD. The newer research areas, such as sexuality and gender-specific issues, were underrepresented. Limited patient involvement was observed in intervention development and implementation, with only 1 intervention including patients and 2 involving family members. There was variability in defining psychoeducation across the studies, prompting further discussion on its implications.
Investigators concluded that the literature on psychoeducation for adult ADHD lacks readiness for systematic effect estimation, emphasizing the necessity for a shared definition of psychoeducation; however, results from this review underscore the rarity of end-user involvement in intervention development and delivery.
Source: bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-024-05530-8