4.5 Article

Secondary evaluations of MTA 36-month outcomes: Propensity score and growth mixture model analyses

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e3180686d63

Keywords

attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; clinical trial; stimulant; behavior therapy; multimodal treatment

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [N01 MH12007, U01 MH50461, N01 MH 12010, N01MH12012, U01 MH50440, U01 MH50467, N01MH12009, U01 MH50477, U01 MH50453, N01MH 12004, N01MH 12011, N01MH12008] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate two hypotheses: that self-selection bias contributed to lack of medication advantage at the 36-month assessment of the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children With ADHD (MTA) and that overall improvement overtime obscured treatment effects in subgroups with different outcome trajectories. Method: Propensity score analyses, using baseline characteristics and severity of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms at follow-up, established five subgroups (quintiles) based on tendency to take medication at the 36-month assessment. Growth mixture model (GMM) analyses were performed to identify subgroups (classes) with different patterns of outcome overtime. Results: All five propensity subgroups showed initial advantage of medication that disappeared by the 36-month assessment. GMM analyses identified heterogeneity of trajectories over time and three classes: class 1 (34% of the MTA sample) with initial small improvement followed by gradual improvement that produced significant medication effects; class 2 (52%) with initial large improvement maintained for 3 years and overrepreseniation of cases treated with the MTA Medication Algorithm; and class 3 (14%) with initial large improvement followed by deterioration. Conclusions: We failed to confirm the self-selection hypothesis. We found suggestive evidence of residual but not current benefits of assigned medication in class 2 and small current benefits of actual treatment with medication in class 1.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available