Efficacy of a Stepped Care Approach for Adolescents and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): An Adaptive Intervention Study Including Randomized Controlled Trials (ESCAlate).
{"title":"Efficacy of a Stepped Care Approach for Adolescents and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD): An Adaptive Intervention Study Including Randomized Controlled Trials (ESCAlate).","authors":"Toivo Zinnow,Wolfgang Retz,Anna Kaiser,Esther Sobanski,Daniel Brandeis,Roberto D Amelio,Sergyi Davydenko,Thomas Ethofer,Ann-Christine Ehlis,Andreas J Fallgatter,Samira Groß,Beate Krecklow,Petra Retz-Junginger,Peter Praus,Marcel Schulze,Johannes Thome,Sabina Millenet,Tobias Banaschewski,Alexandra Philipsen,Michael Rösler","doi":"10.1159/000551307","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION\r\nThis study evaluated the effectiveness of a stepped-care approach - a staged model that escalates from lower- to higher-intensity treatments according to clinical response - for the treatment of adolescents and adults with ADHD, taking into account symptom severity and prior treatment response.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nIn a multicenter study, adolescents and adults with ADHD (16-45y) participated in a two-step treatment program including randomized controlled trials. Step1: Patients were (block-)randomized to 3 months of Psychoeducation (PE), Telephone-assisted self-help (TASH), or waiting control (WC). Step2: Based on Step1-response (full, partial, none), patients received either counseling or were randomized to counseling with/without neurofeedback (NF) or pharmacological treatment (with/without NF) for 6 months. The primary outcome was change in clinician-rated ADHD symptoms, analyzed using linear (mixed-)effects models for repeated measures to account for correlations within participants over time.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nBetween 01/2015-09/2020, N=299 (mean age=28y, 55.2% male) patients were randomized in Step1. The primary outcome showed no significant between-group differences (PE vs. TASH: d=-0.12, 95%-CI [-3.18,1.19], p=0.64; PE vs. Control: d=-0.26, 95%-CI [-4.25,0.05], p=0.13; TASH vs. Control: d=-0.14, 95%-CI [-3.24,1.04], p=0.57). However, significant within-group effects emerged (PE: d=-0.60; TASH: d=-0.48; WC: d=-0.34; p<0.001). Step2 also showed no between-group differences but significant within-group effects (MPH: d=-0.59; MPH+NF: d=-0.76; counseling: d=-0.57/-1.35, p=0.01/p<0.001). Mixed-models revealed symptom reduction in all Step1 responders and Step1 non-responders in Step2.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSION\r\nThe lack of Step1-RCT differences questions the specific effects of PE/TASH. Similar patterns emerged in Step2, but intensified treatment for Step1 non-responders improved outcomes in MPH groups. Step1 response influenced later treatment success. Some stepped-care combinations did not further reduce symptoms, but no rebound effects occurred. The main limitations of this study are the two-step design complexity, limited information on certain (additional) psychosocial components, and the need to make assumptions about missing data. Nevertheless, findings support the feasibility and partial effectiveness of a stepped-care approach.","PeriodicalId":20744,"journal":{"name":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-32"},"PeriodicalIF":9.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000551307","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a stepped-care approach - a staged model that escalates from lower- to higher-intensity treatments according to clinical response - for the treatment of adolescents and adults with ADHD, taking into account symptom severity and prior treatment response.
METHODS
In a multicenter study, adolescents and adults with ADHD (16-45y) participated in a two-step treatment program including randomized controlled trials. Step1: Patients were (block-)randomized to 3 months of Psychoeducation (PE), Telephone-assisted self-help (TASH), or waiting control (WC). Step2: Based on Step1-response (full, partial, none), patients received either counseling or were randomized to counseling with/without neurofeedback (NF) or pharmacological treatment (with/without NF) for 6 months. The primary outcome was change in clinician-rated ADHD symptoms, analyzed using linear (mixed-)effects models for repeated measures to account for correlations within participants over time.
RESULTS
Between 01/2015-09/2020, N=299 (mean age=28y, 55.2% male) patients were randomized in Step1. The primary outcome showed no significant between-group differences (PE vs. TASH: d=-0.12, 95%-CI [-3.18,1.19], p=0.64; PE vs. Control: d=-0.26, 95%-CI [-4.25,0.05], p=0.13; TASH vs. Control: d=-0.14, 95%-CI [-3.24,1.04], p=0.57). However, significant within-group effects emerged (PE: d=-0.60; TASH: d=-0.48; WC: d=-0.34; p<0.001). Step2 also showed no between-group differences but significant within-group effects (MPH: d=-0.59; MPH+NF: d=-0.76; counseling: d=-0.57/-1.35, p=0.01/p<0.001). Mixed-models revealed symptom reduction in all Step1 responders and Step1 non-responders in Step2.
CONCLUSION
The lack of Step1-RCT differences questions the specific effects of PE/TASH. Similar patterns emerged in Step2, but intensified treatment for Step1 non-responders improved outcomes in MPH groups. Step1 response influenced later treatment success. Some stepped-care combinations did not further reduce symptoms, but no rebound effects occurred. The main limitations of this study are the two-step design complexity, limited information on certain (additional) psychosocial components, and the need to make assumptions about missing data. Nevertheless, findings support the feasibility and partial effectiveness of a stepped-care approach.
期刊介绍:
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics is a reputable journal that has been published since 1953. Over the years, it has gained recognition for its independence, originality, and methodological rigor. The journal has been at the forefront of research in psychosomatic medicine, psychotherapy research, and psychopharmacology, and has contributed to the development of new lines of research in these areas. It is now ranked among the world's most cited journals in the field.
As the official journal of the International College of Psychosomatic Medicine and the World Federation for Psychotherapy, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics serves as a platform for discussing current and controversial issues and showcasing innovations in assessment and treatment. It offers a unique forum for cutting-edge thinking at the intersection of medical and behavioral sciences, catering to both practicing clinicians and researchers.
The journal is indexed in various databases and platforms such as PubMed, MEDLINE, Web of Science, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Previews, Google Scholar, Academic Search, and Health Research Premium Collection, among others.