PONE-D-21-16848

The Impact of Psychological Theory on the Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults: A Scoping Review

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Champ ,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Kindly address all points raise dby the two reviewers and resubmit by November 15th, 2021. If you need more time, you can inform the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Gerard Hutchinson, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that this manuscript is a scoping review; our author guidelines therefore require that you use PRISMA guidance to help improve reporting quality and consistency for this type of study. Please include copies of the completed PRISMA checklist for scoping reviews (http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/ScopingReviews) as Supporting Information with a file name “PRISMA checklist

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Authors make a very good review on characterizations of ADHD from different psychological approaches, as well as the different psychological therapies applied to patients. Description of psychological approaches and characteristics of therapies applied is detailed and sufficient. In this regard, it is an interesting article on the history of ADHD psychological treatment. However, the present manuscript is largely descriptive, and could be greatly improved by adding information that would also be useful in the discussion section, as well as to support authors´conclusions.

MAJOR ISSUES

1.- The hierarchy of ideas is not always clear, it would benefit from establishing headings and subheadings clearly. For example, at first authors talk about behavioral therapy and state that the review will address this subject in waves, and describe the first wave in page 7, line 150 (authors could use a subheading for this section). However, after first wave authors address REBT (page 8, line 167), and later return to the second wave on page 8, line 181). Are authors considering REBT a subheading of the CBT first wave? This situation repeats along the manuscript. Please add subheadings as needed.

2.- In the present version of the manuscript, a detailed description of each psychological approach is provided, along with information regarding the specific therapeutic interventions. However, authors do not state whether the interventions they mention (first wave, REBT, second wave, etc) were successful or not (except for light therapy and computer based interventions, where some treatment outcomes are mentioned), or which symptoms were treated more effectively, or if follow up studies revealed information regarding symptoms control in the long term, or if sessions could be separated for longer periods of time as treatment advanced, etc. Information regarding the effectiveness of each of the psychological therapies addressed would be necessary to understand not only how psychological approaches have changed, but also if these changes had an effect on patients´ health. Please include information regarding effectiveness of the psychological treatments described, it could be included as a paragraph at the end of each section (first wave, second wave, etc.).

Furthermore, it would be useful for discussion. In page 24, lines 633 and 634, authors say that “Critically, it highlights that a single theoretical perspective limits research into effective treatments for ADHD”, which implies first, that current psychological treatments for ADHD can be more effective, and secondly, that there are psychological approaches, currently not considered, that could improve treatment effectiveness. Therefore, this statement should be supported by at least two points in the discussion section: a) Specify how the effectiveness of psychological treatment could be improved, i.e. which outcomes could be better (improvement in more areas, observing effects after a shorter treatment, etc); and b) propose some aspects not considered in the current psychological approach, that could be useful when addressing ADHD, improving treatment effectiveness.

MINOR ISSUES

1.- Page 3, Line 65. Quebec is not a language

2.- It would be very useful if authors included a table comparing the different theoretical approaches for ADHD, outlining similitudes and differences

Reviewer #2: The main aim of this review was to consider the use of psychological theory in the development of ADHD treatment for adults. Key themes of the cognitive-behavioural approach to adult ADHD have been explored. The review is a useful contribution to the field. Whilst literature is available on the topic, I would suggest this is a timely update that explores a breadth of evidence.

The rationale for the scoping review is clear. It is written clearly and easy to follow. The review is well informed and provides the field with a useful foundation for future research directions.

I would suggest minor revisions would be beneficial to the reader, the sentence ‘characterisations of ADHD that were not empirically researched’ on line 98, page 5 could be expanded on, to let the reader understand the inclusion criteria further. Also, attention should be paid to the reference list, some information is missing/inconsistent due to formatting errors.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

The Impact of Psychological Theory on the Treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Adults: A Scoping Review

PONE-D-21-16848R1

Dear Dr. Champ 

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Gerard Hutchinson, MD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The additions on the revised version of the manuscript allow a clearer definition of its purpose, which is more focused on the theoretical aspect of ADHD characterization and, as stated in the title, its impact on ADHD treatment. In this regard, the first part of these objectives (theoretical aspect of ADHD characterization) is fully addressed along the manuscript. Moreover, what the title implies regarding the impact of psychological theory on ADHD treatment is briefly addressed at the discussion section.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No