[hirvi74]

What are your clinical observations and opinions on actual research backed treatments? I am mainly concerned about the efficacy of stimulants as a treatment as opposed to non-stimulants and psychotherapeutic interventions.

Also, is there are evidence based instruments to aid in diagnosis, then why do those same instruments tend to magically be removed from care during the treatment phase?

For the sake of analogy, if a patient were to be diagnosed with hypertension and an anti-hypertensive medication regiment is started. I imagine upon returning for a follow up visit, the patient's blood pressure will be remeasured in order to verify the efficacy of the treatment.

For ADHD, I had to go through quite a significant diagnostic process before being given the green light for treatment. Upon returning for a follow up, the only methodology used to gauge treatment efficacy is being asked, "How is <insert medication> work for you?"

I always try to answer the question honestly, but after almost 12 years of treatment, I still am not sure what to expect in terms of treatment. Are such questions truly the only evaluation of treatment? How can one tell if medication is working better than they realize or not at all? Perhaps my expectations are too high? Also, wouldn't some metric help determine if tolerance is occurring?

[lazystar]

> How can one tell if medication is working better than they realize or not at all?

in my case, if i still have a job, then its working lol

[hirvi74]

Ha! Not a bad test at all. I wish I could use the same test. However my employer is not a good test for dysfunction is often rewarded. I can't say any specifics about the domain I work in, but just know the name starts with the letter 'g' and ends with 'overnment'.