Nerissa S Bauer1, Nina Azer, Paula D Sullivan, Dorota Szczepaniak, Sarah M Stelzner, Stephen M Downs, Aaron E Carroll. 1. *Section of Children's Health Services Research, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN; †Center for Health Services Research, Regenstrief Institute Inc, Indianapolis, IN; ‡Department of Pediatrics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY; §Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN; ‖Eskenazi Medical Group, Indianapolis, IN; ¶Section of Pediatric and Adolescent Comparative Effectiveness Research, Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:Children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have ongoing needs that impair home and school functioning. Group visit models are a promising way to deliver timely parenting support but family and provider acceptance has not previously been examined. The objective was to describe the acceptability of ADHD group visits in busy pediatric clinics based on caregivers, child participants and facilitators. METHODS: Data were analyzed from school-age children and caregivers who participated in one of two 12-month long randomized controlled studies of the ADHD group visit model from 2012 to 2013 or 2014 to 2015. Feedback was obtained using semi-structured questions at each study end, by telephone or at the last group visit. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and themes were extracted by participant type. RESULTS: A total of 34 caregivers, 41 children and 9 facilitators offered feedback. Caregivers enjoyed the "support group" aspect and learning new things from others. Caregivers reported improved understanding of ADHD and positive changes in the relationship with their child. Children were able to recall specific skills learned including how skills helped at home or school. Facilitators acknowledged systems-level challenges to offering group visits but felt the group format helped increase understanding of families' needs, improved overall care, and provided innovative ways to engage with families. CONCLUSION: The majority of comments from families and facilitators highlighted a variety of benefits of the use of a group visit model for ADHD chronic care. Despite systems-level barriers to implementation, families and facilitators felt the benefits outweighed the challenges.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE:Children with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have ongoing needs that impair home and school functioning. Group visit models are a promising way to deliver timely parenting support but family and provider acceptance has not previously been examined. The objective was to describe the acceptability of ADHD group visits in busy pediatric clinics based on caregivers, childparticipants and facilitators. METHODS: Data were analyzed from school-age children and caregivers who participated in one of two 12-month long randomized controlled studies of the ADHD group visit model from 2012 to 2013 or 2014 to 2015. Feedback was obtained using semi-structured questions at each study end, by telephone or at the last group visit. Sessions were audio-recorded, transcribed and themes were extracted by participant type. RESULTS: A total of 34 caregivers, 41 children and 9 facilitators offered feedback. Caregivers enjoyed the "support group" aspect and learning new things from others. Caregivers reported improved understanding of ADHD and positive changes in the relationship with their child. Children were able to recall specific skills learned including how skills helped at home or school. Facilitators acknowledged systems-level challenges to offering group visits but felt the group format helped increase understanding of families' needs, improved overall care, and provided innovative ways to engage with families. CONCLUSION: The majority of comments from families and facilitators highlighted a variety of benefits of the use of a group visit model for ADHD chronic care. Despite systems-level barriers to implementation, families and facilitators felt the benefits outweighed the challenges.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Vanja Sikirica; Emuella Flood; C Noelle Dietrich; Javier Quintero; Val Harpin; Paul Hodgkins; Klaus Skrodzki; Kathleen Beusterien; M Haim Erder Journal: Patient Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.883
Authors: Hillary D Lum; Jacqueline Jones; Daniel D Matlock; Russell E Glasgow; Ingrid Lobo; Cari R Levy; Robert S Schwartz; Rebecca L Sudore; Jean S Kutner Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Nerissa S Bauer; Dorota Szczepaniak; Paula D Sullivan; GenaLynne Mooneyham; Amy Pottenger; Cynthia S Johnson; Stephen M Downs Journal: J Dev Behav Pediatr Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 2.225