UNLABELLED: IntroductionAn in-office linguistic study was conducted to help improve understanding of how to better evaluate and treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Naturally occurring interactions were recorded among 7 psychiatrists and 23 patients and 8 pediatricians along with 22 patients and their parents. Participants were interviewed separately post-visit. Transcripts of interactions and interviews were analyzed using sociolinguistic techniques. RESULTS: Visits were variable in length and lacked concrete treatment plans. In the pediatric setting, children were typically excluded from dialogues, accounting for only 8% of words spoken. School was the primary metric used to evaluate symptoms. Pediatricians allayed parents' concerns about stimulant therapy by promising to prescribe the lowest possible dose, rather than discussing titrating to an optimal dose. Adults were evaluated idiosyncratically without the use of scales or tools. Stimulants were positioned as short-term "trials" without strong physician recommendations.DiscussionConversations about stimulant therapy lacked goal- and expectation-setting. Also missing from conversations was a definitive treatment plan based on the core symptoms of ADHD. Incorporating open-ended questions and tools or rating scales may result in a more effective and efficient in-office dialogue. CONCLUSION: Further research is warranted to assess the efficacy of communication strategies to enhance in-office discussions of ADHD and stimulant therapy.
UNLABELLED: IntroductionAn in-office linguistic study was conducted to help improve understanding of how to better evaluate and treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). METHODS: Naturally occurring interactions were recorded among 7 psychiatrists and 23 patients and 8 pediatricians along with 22 patients and their parents. Participants were interviewed separately post-visit. Transcripts of interactions and interviews were analyzed using sociolinguistic techniques. RESULTS: Visits were variable in length and lacked concrete treatment plans. In the pediatric setting, children were typically excluded from dialogues, accounting for only 8% of words spoken. School was the primary metric used to evaluate symptoms. Pediatricians allayed parents' concerns about stimulant therapy by promising to prescribe the lowest possible dose, rather than discussing titrating to an optimal dose. Adults were evaluated idiosyncratically without the use of scales or tools. Stimulants were positioned as short-term "trials" without strong physician recommendations.DiscussionConversations about stimulant therapy lacked goal- and expectation-setting. Also missing from conversations was a definitive treatment plan based on the core symptoms of ADHD. Incorporating open-ended questions and tools or rating scales may result in a more effective and efficient in-office dialogue. CONCLUSION: Further research is warranted to assess the efficacy of communication strategies to enhance in-office discussions of ADHD and stimulant therapy.
Authors: Betsy Sleath; Delesha M Carpenter; Robyn Sayner; Kathleen Thomas; Larry Mann; Adam Sage; Sandra H Sulzer; Adrian D Sandler Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2017-01-10
Authors: Betsy Sleath; Sandra H Sulzer; Delesha M Carpenter; Catherine Slota; Christopher Gillette; Robyn Sayner; Stephanie Davis; Adrian Sandler Journal: Community Ment Health J Date: 2013-12-24