|
Post by Amtram on Feb 5, 2014 11:04:36 GMT -5
|
|
dotty
New Member
amiably eccentric
Posts: 40
|
Post by dotty on Feb 12, 2014 21:19:53 GMT -5
I think this is an awfully good idea. And I think it should include screening for ADHD. I think early intervention can really mitigate impairment.
|
|
|
Post by tigger on Feb 13, 2014 0:47:50 GMT -5
Dotty, the challenge for early screening for ADHD is that the testing is less definitive at younger ages.
I was diagnosed at age four in the early 60s based on the results of an EEG. Today, that diagnosis would never have been considered. I was re-diagnosed in 05 and ADHD was validated as the key diagnosis.
We have to be realistic about what can be reasonably determined and at what age. My mother contended that she knew that there was something "wrong" when I was an infant. Still, there was no reasonable way to validate her belief for another few years. Even then, the belief was that ADHD would "go away" in puberty, and that it wasn't really an issue in any material way, regardless.
I want to see new development in diagnosis techniques and to see those techniques broadly used as they are proven. My emphasis would be that those diagnostic techniques be proven.
|
|
|
Post by Amtram on Feb 13, 2014 10:11:52 GMT -5
However, I do recall a discussion of early signs noticed by parents that included some differences exhibited in infancy. There's not too much supportive research, but if parents can be aware of things to look out for - especially if they have a family history that includes ADHD - it might help to know. Even preschool intervention is better than nothing.
|
|
dotty
New Member
amiably eccentric
Posts: 40
|
Post by dotty on Feb 13, 2014 12:06:11 GMT -5
The quote mentions an updated screening tool. I don't think it's wrong to hope that there's a possibility of such a thing happening in the diagnostics of ADHD as well. It wouldn't have to be done for every infant, but in families with a known history of ADHD it could lead to early interventions that could be very helpful.
|
|
|
Post by tigger on Feb 13, 2014 13:36:35 GMT -5
From my perspective we haven't learned much in 40 odd years. Not about ADHD, anyway.
Both of you point out in various ways that my thinking may be stuck. I think that I have become rather cynical regarding the medical profession taking ADHD seriously. That's on me.
I absolutely believe that the earlier a person with ADHD gets help, the better. If I recall, Barkley has opined that the deficits of ADHD are easily observed in children at age 4 or so. I believe that he was reliant on information from schools and the textbook has been revised since my edition (1991). Regardless, I believe that if you begin to teach coping structure at that age, you can significantly improve outcomes for the child.
|
|
dotty
New Member
amiably eccentric
Posts: 40
|
Post by dotty on Feb 13, 2014 14:30:12 GMT -5
I'm cynical about the medical profession in general. I just hope the change in the DSM for age of onset from 7 to 12 won't delay diagnosis for those who are younger than 12.
|
|
|
Post by tigger on Feb 13, 2014 15:08:32 GMT -5
I'm cynical about the medical profession in general. I just hope the change in the DSM for age of onset from 7 to 12 won't delay diagnosis for those who are younger than 12. I completely agree, Dotty. That age change concerns me greatly because onset is actually birth and at a minimum social deficits are observable MUCH earlier than 12. I truly believe that the DSM shouldn't quantify an age of onset. Often it delays diagnosis and treatment. By age 12, too much damage is already done that could be avoided with earlier treatment.
|
|
dotty
New Member
amiably eccentric
Posts: 40
|
Post by dotty on Feb 13, 2014 16:57:48 GMT -5
I'm cynical about the medical profession in general. I just hope the change in the DSM for age of onset from 7 to 12 won't delay diagnosis for those who are younger than 12. I completely agree, Dotty. That age change concerns me greatly because onset is actually birth and at a minimum social deficits are observable MUCH earlier than 12. I truly believe that the DSM shouldn't quantify an age of onset. Often it delays diagnosis and treatment. By age 12, too much damage is already done that could be avoided with earlier treatment. I believe the point of that was to be able to diagnose children who hadn't been caught sooner, which is a good thing, but I don't see that it will help with catching it in younger children.
|
|