Effect of medication versus CBT-informed psychoeducation on adult ADHD
Research type
Research Study
Full title
Evaluating the efficiency of medication and CBT-informed psycho-education skill group on improving the symptoms and quality of life in adults newly diagnosed with ADHD.
IRAS ID
179263
Contact name
Charlene Gong
Contact email
Sponsor organisation
Avon & Wiltshire NHS Trust
Duration of Study in the UK
1 years, 0 months, 1 days
Research summary
This study focuses on the improvement of symptoms and quality of life in adults who have been newly diagnosed with attentional-deficit-hyperactive-disorder (ADHD). The aim is to investigate how much symptoms and quality of life have improved since the clients chose different treatments. The result of this project provides an evaluation of the efficiency of medication alone versus when combined with psychological intervention in adult ADHD. It also sheds light onto what aspects of qualify of life benefit from various treatment intervention. This will inform clinicians of a suitable intervention given a focus to improve particular areas of a client’s symptoms and quality of life. Among all clients currently seen in this clinic, the majority are on medication. Among all current clients, some have participated in a 5-week psychoeducation intervention. Therefore, these clients naturally fell into 4 groups: medication only, psychoeducation only (not included in this project due to a small number=4), medicine combined with psycheducation, and not yet receiving treatment (please see detailed numbers in section A-60). Clients have filled in the ADHD symptom self-checklist and a recovery well-being scale before being assessed by the clinic as routine practice. For the current project, participants will fill in these two questionnaires again together with another two well-validated psychometric measures and 4 open-ended questions related to their quality of life. Considering the respondents will have various length of time on various treatments, we can compare between: 1) improvement of clients’ well-being and symptoms on different treatment (by comparing their responses pre- and post-treatment and between different treatment groups), and 2) how much of the treatment effect has maintained throughout years (e.g., by comparing 2011 clients’ responses to that of 2014). Participants can also choose to attend a discussion session on phone/in person to provide further details about their experience with various treatments.
REC name
London - Fulham Research Ethics Committee
REC reference
15/LO/0767
Date of REC Opinion
22 Apr 2015
REC opinion
Favourable Opinion