BackgroundThe benefits of end‐user involvement in health‐care research are widely recognized by research agencies. There are few published evaluations of end‐user involvement in systematic reviews.Objectives(i) Describe end‐user involvement in a complex mixed‐methods systematic review of ADHD in schools, (ii) reflect on the impact of end‐user involvement, (iii) highlight challenges and benefits experienced and (iv) provide suggestions to inform future involvement.MethodsEnd‐users were involved in all stages of the project, both as authors and as members of an advisory group. In addition, several events were held with groups of relevant end‐users during the project.ResultsEnd‐user input (i) guided the direction of the research, (ii) contributed to a typology of interventions and outcomes, (iii) contributed to the direction of data analysis and (iv) contributed to the robustness of the syntheses by demonstrating the alignment of interim findings with lived experiences. Challenges included (i) managing expectations, (ii) managing the intensity of emotion, (iii) ensuring that involvement was fruitful for all not just the researcher, (iv) our capacity to communicate and manage the process and (v) engendering a sense of involvement amongst end‐users.ConclusionsEnd‐user involvement was an important aspect of this project. To minimize challenges in future projects, a recognition by the project management team and the funding provider that end‐user involvement even in evidence synthesis projects is resource intensive is essential to allow appropriate allocation of time and resources for meaningful engagement.

Background: Autism has been associated with specific cognitive strengths. Strengths and weaknesses have traditionally been conceptualized as dichotomous. Methods: We conducted 28 semi-structured interviews with autistic adults. Maximum variation sampling was used to ensure diversity in relation to support needs. We asked which personal traits adults attributed to their autism, and how these have helped in the workplace, in relationships, and beyond. Data were collected in two stages. Responses were analyzed using content and thematic techniques. Results: The ability to hyperfocus, attention to detail, good memory, and creativity were the most frequently described traits. Participants also described specific qualities relating to social interaction, such as honesty, loyalty, and empathy for animals or for other autistic people. In thematic analysis we found that traits associated with autism could be experienced either as advantageous or disadvantageous dependent on moderating influences. Moderating influences included the social context in which behaviors occurred, the ability to control behaviors, and the extent to which traits were expressed. Conclusions: Separating autistic strengths from weaknesses may be a false dichotomy if traits cannot be isolated as separate constructs of strengths or deficits. If attempts to isolate problematic traits from advantageous traits are ill conceived, there may be implications for interventions that have reduction in autistic traits as a primary outcome measure.

BackgroundAttention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by age-inappropriate levels of inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. School can be particularly challenging for children with ADHD. Few reviews have considered non-pharmacological interventions in school settings.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions delivered in school settings for pupils with, or at risk of, ADHD and to explore the factors that may enhance, or limit, their delivery.Data sourcesTwenty electronic databases (including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Centre, The Cochrane Library and Education Research Complete) were searched from 1980 to February–August 2013. Three separate searches were conducted for four systematic reviews; they were supplemented with forward and backwards citation chasing, website searching, author recommendations and hand-searches of key journals.Review methodsThe systematic reviews focused on (1) the effectiveness of school-based interventions for children with or at risk of ADHD; (2) quantitative research that explores attitudes towards school-based non-pharmacological interventions for pupils with ADHD; (3) qualitative research investigating the attitudes and experiences of children, teachers, parents and others using ADHD interventions in school settings; and (4) qualitative research exploring the experience of ADHD in school among pupils, their parents and teachers more generally. Methods of synthesis included a random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression and narrative synthesis for review 1, narrative synthesis for review 2 and meta-ethnography and thematic analysis for reviews 3 and 4.ResultsFor review 1, 54 controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For the 36 meta-analysed randomised controlled trials, beneficial effects (p < 0.05) were observed for several symptom and scholastic outcomes. Mean weighted effect sizes ranged from very small (d+ < 0.20) to large (d+ ≥ 0.80), but substantial heterogeneity in effect size estimates across studies was reported. Moderator analyses were not able to clarify which intervention features were linked with effectiveness. For review 2, 28 included studies revealed that educators’ attitudes towards interventions ranged in positivity. Most interventions were rated positively or neutrally across different studies. The only intervention that consistently recorded positive attitudes from educators was daily report cards. For review 3, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Key findings included tensions regarding the preferred format of interventions, particularly how structured interventions were and the extent to which they are tailored to the child with ADHD. There were mixed views about the impact of interventions, although it was clear that interventions both influence and are influenced by the relationships held by children with ADHD and participants’ attitudes towards school and ADHD. For review 4, 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. Key findings included the importance of causal attributions that teachers, parents and pupils made about ADHD symptoms, the decisions teachers made about treatment, the self-perceptions pupils developed about themselves, the role of the classroom environment and stigma in aggravating ADHD symptoms, and the significant barrier to treatment posed by the common presence of conflict in relationships between pupils–teachers, parents–teachers and pupils–peers in relation to ADHD. An overarching synthesis of the four reviews highlighted the importance of the context affecting interventions. It suggested that ADHD psychoeducation and relationship-building skills are potential implications for interventions.LimitationsThe breadth of both interventions and outcomes in the reviewed studies presented a challenge for categorisation, analysis and interpretation in reviews 1–3. Across reviews, relatively few studies were conducted in the UK, limiting the applicability of findings to UK education. In reviews 1 and 2, the poor methodological quality of some included studies was identified as a barrier to establishing effectiveness or comparing attitudes. In review 3 the descriptive analysis used by the majority of studies constrained theorising during synthesis. Studies in review 4 lacked detail regarding important issues like gender, pupil maturity and school level.ConclusionFindings suggest some beneficial effects of non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD used in school settings, but substantial heterogeneity in effect sizes was seen across studies. The qualitative reviews demonstrate the importance of the context in which interventions are used. Future work should consider more rigorous evaluation of interventions, as well as focus on what works, for whom and in which contexts. Gaps in current research present opportunities for the development and testing of standardised tools to describe interventions, agreement on gold-standard outcome measures assessing ADHD behaviour and testing a range of potential moderators alongside intervention trials.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001716.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

BackgroundMany people diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar or other psychoses in England receive the majority of their healthcare from primary care. Primary care practitioners may not be well equipped to meet their needs and there is often poor communication with secondary care. Collaborative care is a promising alternative model but has not been trialled specifically with this service user group in England. Collaborative care for other mental health conditions has not been widely implemented despite evidence of its effectiveness. We carried out a formative evaluation of the PARTNERS model of collaborative care, with the aim of establishing barriers and facilitators to delivery, identifying implementation support requirements and testing the initial programme theory.MethodsThe PARTNERS intervention was delivered on a small scale in three sites. Qualitative data was collected from primary and secondary care practitioners, service users and family carers, using semi-structured interviews, session recordings and tape-assisted recall. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis was carried out; themes were compared to the programme theory and used to inform an implementation support strategy.ResultsKey components of the intervention that were not consistently delivered as intended were: interaction with primary care teams, the use of coaching, and supervision. Barriers and facilitators identified were related to service commitment, care partner skills, supervisor understanding and service user motivation. An implementation support strategy was developed, with researcher facilitation of communication and supervision and additional training for practitioners. Some components of the intervention were not experienced as intended; this appeared to reflect difficulties with operationalising the intervention. Analysis of data relating to the intended outcomes of the intervention indicated that the mechanisms proposed in the programme theory had operated as expected.ConclusionsAdditional implementation support is likely to be required for the PARTNERS model to be delivered; the effectiveness of such support may be affected by practitioner and service user readiness to change. There is also a need to test the programme theory more fully. These issues will be addressed in the process evaluation of our full trial.Trial registrationISRCTN95702682, 26 October 2017.

Educational policy and the school effectiveness movement often involve rhetoric about the benefit of parent involvement in schools, but high quality relationships between parents and teachers are not always straightforwardly achieved, and this may be particularly true for parents of children presenting with academic problems and/or Social, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties (SEBD). A systematic review of qualitative research was conducted to explore the school-related experiences of parents of pupils diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Six studies reported in seven papers met the inclusion criteria. High quality parent-teacher relationships were found to be the exception, with mothers feeling silenced and criticised. Findings show commonalities with wider research about parents, but identify additional grounds for conflict resulting from parental blame for a pupils' disruptive behaviour, and the ambivalent nature of the concept of ADHD.