Clinical Research Directory

Empowering Caregivers in ADHD Treatment: Standard Care Vs. Decision Aid, Coaching, and AI Support

The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate different decision-support interventions to help parents make informed treatment decisions for their children with ADHD. The study will compare four approaches to assess their impact on decision-making quality, decisional conflict, and treatment adherence among parents of children aged 6-17 years diagnosed with ADHD. The main questions it aims to answer are: Does providing parents with decision-support tools improve decision-making quality compared to standard care? Do decision aid, decision aid + decision coaching, and AI-driven support further enhance parental self-efficacy, knowledge, and adherence to treatment decisions? Standard care (physician consultation only) A written decision aid (structured booklet) Decision aid + decision coaching (booklet + one-on-one coaching session) AI-driven support (interaction with an AI tool) Participants will: Complete a baseline questionnaire before the intervention Receive their assigned decision-support intervention (if applicable) Complete follow-up questionnaires at 2 weeks and 3 months after the intervention Report on treatment decisions and medication adherence over 3 months This study will determine whether structured decision aids, coaching, or AI-driven tools improve parental decision-making and treatment adherence in ADHD care.

The Primary Objective of This Study is to Determine Whether Positively Framed Information (PFI) on Side Effects, Compared to Negatively Framed and Extensive Information (NFI) Can Reduce the Number and Severity of Reported Adverse Events Caused by ADHD Medication in Children Aged 7 to 17 Years.

The goal of this randomized controlled care evaluation is to determine whether positively framed and concise information (PFI), compared to negatively framed and extensive information (NFI) about adverse events can reduce the number and severity of reported adverse events caused by ADHD medication in children aged 7 to 17 years. The main questions it aims to answer are: 1. Does PFI reduce the percentage of children suffering from decreased appetite in the first 4 weeks after starting medication compared to NFI? 2. Does PFI reduce the total number of adverse events compared to NFI? 3. Does PFI lower the total score on the Pittsburgh Side Effects Rating Scale (PSRS) compared to NFI? 4. Does PFI lead to higher parental satisfaction with the explanation of adverse events compared to NFI? 5. Does PFI reduce the number of patients who discontinue medication due to adverse events compared to NFI? 6. Does PFI decrease the number of patients needing melatonin for sleeping problems due to the use of methylphenidate compared to NFI? 7. What is the relationship between baseline factors such as age, ADHD or ADD diagnosis, and gender on the number of adverse events? Researchers will compare children who receive positively framed, concise information (PFI) to those who receive negatively framed, detailed information (NFI) to determine if the framing of information affects the prevalence and severity of reported side effects, medication adherence, and parental satisfaction. Participants in this study will: * Be randomly assigned to receive either PFI or NFI about the side effects of methylphenidate. * Start taking methylphenidate according to standard care protocols. * Complete a Pittsburgh Side Effects Rating Scale (PSRS) questionnaire 4 weeks after starting medication to report any adverse events and their severity. * Parents will provide feedback on satisfaction with the explanation of side effects using a short questionnaire. This trial aims to inform best practices for communicating potential side effects to improve medication adherence and the overall treatment experience for children with ADHD and their families.