↓ Skip to main content

Study of user experience of an objective test (QbTest) to aid ADHD assessment and medication management: a multi-methods approach

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Psychiatry, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
223 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Study of user experience of an objective test (QbTest) to aid ADHD assessment and medication management: a multi-methods approach
Published in
BMC Psychiatry, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12888-017-1222-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charlotte L. Hall, Althea Z. Valentine, Gemma M. Walker, Harriet M. Ball, Heather Cogger, David Daley, Madeleine J. Groom, Kapil Sayal, Chris Hollis

Abstract

The diagnosis and monitoring of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) typically relies on subjective reports and observations. Objective continuous performance tests (CPTs) have been incorporated into some services to support clinical decision making. However, the feasibility and acceptability of adding such a test into routine practice is unknown. The study aimed to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of adding an objective computerised test to the routine assessment and monitoring of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians (n = 10) and families (parents/young people, n = 20) who participated in a randomised controlled trial. Additionally, the same clinicians (n = 10) and families (n = 76) completed a survey assessing their experience of the QbTest. The study took place in child and adolescent mental health and community paediatric clinics across the UK. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed. Interviewed clinicians and families valued the QbTest for providing an objective, valid assessment of symptoms. The QbTest was noted to facilitate communication between clinicians, families and schools. However, whereas clinicians were more unanimous on the usefulness of the QbTest, survey findings showed that, although the majority of families found the test useful, less than half felt the QbTest helped them understand the clinician's decision making around diagnosis and medication. The QbTest was seen as a potentially valuable tool to use early in the assessment process to streamline the care pathway. Although clinicians were conscious of the additional costs, these could be offset by reductions in time to diagnosis and the delivery of the test by a Healthcare Assistant. The findings indicate the QbTest is an acceptable and feasible tool to implement in routine clinical settings. Clinicians should be mindful to discuss the QbTest results with families to enable their understanding and engagement with the process. Further findings from definitive trials are required to understand the cost/benefit; however, the findings from this study support the feasibility and acceptability of integrating QbTest in the ADHD care pathway. The findings form the implementation component of the Assessing QbTest Utility in ADHD (AQUA) Trial which is registered with the ISRCTN registry ( ISRCTN11727351 , retrospectively registered 04 July 2016) and clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02209116 , registered 04 August 2014).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 223 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 223 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 13%
Student > Bachelor 23 10%
Researcher 21 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 9%
Other 40 18%
Unknown 57 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 58 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 31 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 4%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Social Sciences 6 3%
Other 35 16%
Unknown 76 34%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,130,166
of 14,537,474 outputs
Outputs from BMC Psychiatry
#859
of 3,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,928
of 351,748 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Psychiatry
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,537,474 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,390 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 351,748 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them