(PS1-70) A Mixed Methods Study Examining College Students with ADHD and Their Acceptability and Preferences of Evidence-based Treatments

College students with ADHD experience impairment across multiple domains (e.g., academic, social, occupational) with poorer GPAs, higher rates of substance use, risky sexual behaviors, course withdrawal, and dropout relative to students without ADHD (DuPaul et al., 2021; Glass & Flory, 2011; Weyandt et al., 2023). Research indicates cognitive behavioral therapy and behavioral therapy are effective in improving ADHD symptoms, executive functioning, and comorbid depression in students with ADHD. However, utilization of effective treatments on campuses may be enhanced or limited by the degree to which they find evidence-based treatments available and acceptable in managing their ADHD.

This mixed-method study was conducted to inform the development and implementation of evidence-based treatments for ADHD on a college campus. The study aimed to identify what interventions students would want offered to manage their ADHD and how acceptable they find components of evidence-based treatments targeting specific areas of impairment. A diverse sample of 40 college students with ADHD (45% cisgender women, 23% cisgender man, 23% nonbinary, 68% White, 25% African American, 23% Latino/Hispanic) participated in a semi-structured interview that included a question about what they would include in an intervention designed to help students with ADHD. Additionally, they completed a modified version of the Abbreviated Acceptability Rating Profile (AARP; Tarnowski & Simonian,1992) to assess the acceptability of six treatment components (Cognitive, Behavioral, Organizational, Medication Management, Psychoeducation, Emotional).

Thematic analysis revealed treatment preference themes: psychoeducation, awareness and education for campus community, community building, help me help myself, check-ins (behavioral and emotional), ADHD specific supports, and one size does not fit all. Results of a repeated measures one-way analysis of variance indicated all treatment components were considered acceptable but significant differences emerged, F(5, 35) = 3.48, p = .012. Planned comparisons revealed the Behavioral component was significantly higher than the Cognitive, Psychoeducation, Medication, and Emotional components, but not significantly different than the Organizational component. The Cognitive component was significantly higher than only Emotional, but not different than Medication, Psychoeducation, and Organizational.

Qualitative and quantitative results corroborate that no single treatment component was acceptable to all participants and many approaches for intervening were preferred, including systems level intervention (campus education, community building). Thematic analysis revealed a preference for ADHD-specific support that is nuanced. For many, behavioral strategies were highly acceptable and a preferred intervention theme (i.e., behavioral check-ins). Cognitive interventions were not identified as preferred or among the most acceptable components despite the efficacy of CBT for college students with ADHD. Though not evident in acceptability ratings, psychoeducation and emotional support emerged as prominent themes. Limitations and implications for treatment development will be presented.