Parents' priorities and preferences for treatment of children with ADHD: Qualitative inquiry in the MADDY study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Parents' lived experiences of having a child with ADHD may shape their decision making regarding ADHD treatment options for their child. The aim of this study was to explore parents' experiences of living with a child with ADHD in the family and how their experiences influence their perspectives on treatment preferences and priorities. METHODS: A phenomenological qualitative design was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with parents of children with ADHD who were enrolled in a multisite randomized controlled trial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts at each site were double coded. Initial codes were derived directly from the text. Qualitative data were analysed with an inductive approach. RESULTS: Twenty-three parents were interviewed: eight from Alberta, Canada; eight from Portland, Oregon, USA; and seven from Columbus, Ohio, USA. Among the parents, 69% were married, 86% completed college education and 52% reported household income over $80,000. Among the children, the mean age was 9.6 years (SD = 1.8 years), 78% were boys and 48% were never medicated for their ADHD. Two major themes emerged from the analysis. Theme 1 was 'impact of ADHD on families within and outside the home' with the following subthemes: 'reconfiguring the home life', 'trial-and-error of accommodations at school' and 'responding to social pressures to fit in'. Theme 2 was 'enabling appropriate and accessible treatments for families' with the following subthemes: 'finding the "right fit" with professionals and treatments' and 'factors influencing inequitable access to treatments'. CONCLUSIONS: Parents described shared experiences and identified similar barriers, preferences and priorities for ADHD treatments regardless of demographic differences by site. Families desired access to family-centred, multimodal approaches to ADHD treatment. Further research is needed to identify the specific structural changes to healthcare, services and policies that will better support this approach.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».