Abstract
Approximately 25% of children with ADHD meet criteria for at least one anxiety disorder (Jarrett & Ollendick, 2008), and there is growing evidence that anxiety exacerbates impairments for these children (Bowen, Chavira, Bailey, Stein, & Stein, 2008; Pfiffner & McBurnett, 2006; Sciberras et al., 2014). Children with both ADHD and anxiety have more severe executive and school functioning difficulties including school absenteeism, poorer quality of life (QoL), and more strained family relationships (Bowen et al., 2008; Pfiffner & McBurnett, 2006; Sciberras et al., 2014). Managing anxiety may be one way of improving the broader functioning of children with ADHD; however, anxiety is often under-detected in this population (Efron, Davies, & Sciberras, 2012).
Non-pharmacological treatments for managing anxiety in children with ADHD are desirable given parent preferences for psychological treatments (Dosreis et al., 2003) and the potential side effects and drug interactions when multiple psychotropic medications are prescribed (Efron et al., 2003). Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has the strongest empirical support for the management of pediatric anxiety (Rapee, Schniering, & Hudson, 2009). A small number of pre- and post-test studies have reported that CBT improves anxiety in children with ADHD (Houghton, Alsalmi, Tan, Taylor, & Durkin, 2013; Jarrett & Ollendick, 2012); however, existing studies use non-randomized designs, do not include blinded outcomes, and have not examined benefits to broader areas of functioning including QoL, school-based functioning, and family functioning. Improvements observed in pre- and post-test studies may merely reflect natural resolution of anxiety rather than true treatment effects.
This pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) aimed to (trial number: ISRCTN33930984) (a) examine the acceptability and feasibility of a CBT program to treat anxiety in children with ADHD (primary outcome), and (b) explore associated improvements in child and parent outcomes assessed using multi-source assessment.
Method
Study Design and Sample
Children aged 8 to 12 years with ADHD were recruited from an ADHD Assessment Clinic and previous research studies at The Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne. Ethics approval was granted by the Human Research Ethics Committees of the Royal Children’s Hospital (#33186), the Victorian Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (#2013_002150), and the Catholic Education Office Melbourne (#1943). To be eligible, children needed to (a) meet full criteria for ADHD assessed using the ADHD Rating Scale IV (DuPaul, Power, Anastopoulos, & Reid, 1998) and (b) meet criteria for generalized, social, or separation anxiety disorder assessed using the Anxiety Disorders Interview Schedule for Children IV (ADIS-C; Lyneham & Rapee, 2005). Children were excluded if they were already receiving specialist help to manage anxiety. Children taking medication for anxiety were not excluded provided they were still experiencing significant anxiety and had been on a stable dose for a minimum of 6 weeks prior to enrollment. Interested and eligible families were mailed consent forms and baseline surveys for the primary caregiver and child to complete.
Randomization
On receipt of the completed consent forms and baseline surveys, families were randomized to the “intervention” or “usual care” group. Children in the usual care group continued to receive treatment as usual for their ADHD from their treating pediatrician. At this point, teachers were emailed a survey to complete about the child’s baseline functioning. An independent statistician generated a randomization schedule using a computerized random number sequence. Assignment was in a ratio of 1:1 “intervention” to “usual care.” Allocation was concealed from families and researchers using sealed opaque envelopes until parent consent was obtained. Children in the usual care group continued to access care from their pediatrician for the management of ADHD along with any other health concerns that arose during the study.
Intervention
The intervention group received the Cool Kids CBT program designed for the treatment of pediatric anxiety (Rapee et al., 2013), consisting of eight 60-min weekly sessions, followed by two 60-min biweekly sessions (total of 10 sessions). The program aims to help families and children learn about anxiety and worries and develop the skills to be able to manage child anxiety. Trained facilitators (E.S., M.M.) conducted each session, which included time with the child and parent(s) alone and time with the child and parent together. An individual as opposed to group format was used to cater to the needs of children with ADHD. Adaptations were made to the program to make it more acceptable for children with ADHD and their parents including (a) use of an activity schedule and positive reinforcement to promote on-task behavior, (b) 1-min “brain breaks” between activities, (c) shortening and repetition of key concepts, and (d) use of visual aids in the sessions and at home to promote skills practice.
Measures
The primary outcome was the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention assessed via rates of participant enrollment, drop-out, and intervention session attendance.
Secondary child outcome measures were the parent-completed ADIS-C administered by a blinded interviewer, the Spence Children’s Anxiety Scale (Nauta et al., 2004; child and parent report), the Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale (Lyneham et al., 2013; child and parent report), School Anxiety Scale (Lyneham, Street, Abbott, & Rapee, 2008; teacher report), ADHD Rating Scale IV (DuPaul et al., 1998; parent and teacher report), the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (Goodman, 2001; parent and teacher report), the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 (Varni, Limbers, & Burwinkle, 2007; parent and child report), child school attendance (Sung, Hiscock, Sciberras, & Efron, 2008; parent report), and sleep problems (Sung et al., 2008; parent report) assessed at baseline and 5 months post randomization (~6 weeks post intervention).
Parent outcomes included the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995), parenting anger and consistency (Zubrick, Lucas, Westrupp, & Nicholson, 2014), and work attendance (Sung et al., 2008).
Statistical Analysis
Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. The mean difference in secondary outcomes between the usual care and intervention group was examined using logistic and linear regression. All analyses were re-run adjusting for baseline functioning, and Cohen’s d effect sizes were reported for adjusted findings. Given the proof-of-principle nature of this study, it focused on effect sizes rather than statistical significance testing. Effect size differences of 0.20 to 0.49 were considered small, 0.50 to 0.79 medium, and above 0.80 large (Cohen, 1992). No adjustment for baseline was used for teacher-reported outcomes, as 10 of the 12 participants changed teachers between baseline and follow-up. All analyses were conducted using Stata Version 13.0.
Results
Sixty-seven percent of eligible families approached agreed to be enrolled in the trial (n = 12, see Figure 1; see Table 1 for sample characteristics). Five of the 6 intervention families attended all 10 sessions. The other family only attended three sessions before follow-up but continued to be engaged with the study. All intervention families reported the program was helpful and would recommend it to others. There were no participant drop-outs.

Summary of participant flow.
Sample Characteristics.
At follow-up, three intervention children were free of an anxiety diagnosis compared with none in the usual care group. The total number of anxiety disorders decreased from 14 at baseline to 7 at follow-up (50% reduction) for intervention children and from 12 at baseline to 11 at follow-up for the usual care group (8% reduction). There were substantial improvements across secondary outcome measures by parent and teacher report (see Tables 2 and 3), but little improvement in terms of school or work attendance or child sleep (data not shown). Intervention parents also had improvements in parent mental health and reported less irritable and more consistent parenting at follow-up. Both intervention and usual care children reported improved anxiety and QoL from baseline to 5 months. There was little change in child-reported impairment due to anxiety for intervention children, while there were slight improvements for controls.
Mean Difference in Parent- and Child-Reported Outcomes at 5 Months Post Randomization.
Note. CI = confidence interval; SCAS = Spence Child Anxiety Scale; CALIS = Child Anxiety Life Interference Scale; SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; PedsQL = Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory; DASS = Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale.
Adjusted for baseline score.
Mean Teacher-Reported Outcomes at Baseline and 5 Months Post Randomization.
Note. Mean differences were not calculated as only six children had teacher data available at both baseline and follow-up. SAS = School Anxiety Scale; SDQ = Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire.
Discussion
Consistent with previous research, the findings suggest it is feasible and acceptable to manage anxiety in children with ADHD using standard CBT for anxious children with only minor modifications (Houghton et al., 2013; Jarrett & Ollendick, 2012). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first RCT to report that a CBT intervention for children with ADHD may be associated with improved child and parent well-being, including child anxiety, QoL, ADHD symptom severity and behavior, and improved parent mental health and parenting. Importantly, potential benefits were observed by multiple informants including parents and teachers. The minimal group differences reported by children are consistent with other studies (Rapee et al., 2009). Usual care children had worsening teacher-reported ADHD symptoms over time. This could suggest that comorbid anxiety exacerbates ADHD symptoms if left untreated.
This pilot RCT extends previous research through inclusion of a broad battery of outcome measures, including diagnostic interviews administered by blinded interviewers and blinded teacher-reported outcomes. Although the sample size was small, our use of a randomized design builds on the results of previous studies and provides greater confidence that observed differences reflect intervention effects rather than the natural resolution of anxiety over time. It is possible that benefits observed may have been due to the therapeutic effect of attending sessions, rather than the intervention content itself. Most intervention children (five out of six) were taking medication to manage their ADHD; therefore, future research should examine the suitability of this intervention in children not taking medication to manage ADHD. These results now need to be replicated in an adequately powered RCT with a longer follow-up period.
In conclusion, this study supports the feasibility of managing anxiety in children with ADHD using CBT. We report preliminary evidence suggesting that non-pharmacological interventions may improve important areas of functioning for children with ADHD and anxiety, including ADHD symptom severity.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Murdoch Childrens Research Institute (MCRI) and the Besen Family Trust. Dr. Sciberras is funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship in Population Health 1037159 (2012-2015). Dr. Efron is funded by a MCRI Career Development Award. Professor Anderson is funded by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship 607333 (2010-2014). Professor Nicholson is funded through the Roberta Holmes Chair for the Transition to Contemporary Parenthood Program. Associate Professor Hiscock’s position is funded by an NHMRC Career Development Award (No. 607351). This research was supported by the Victorian Government’s Operational Infrastructure Support Program to the MCRI.
