Informed Consent and Stimulant Medication: Adolescents' and Parents' Ability to Understand Information About Benefits and Risks of Stimulant Medication for the Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study of informed consent examines understanding of information needed to consent to stimulant treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The understanding of adolescents with ADHD, their parents, control adolescents, and their parents is compared. METHOD: Fifty-eight ADHD and 64 control adolescents between the ages of 12 and 16 and their parents were studied. Baseline understanding of information was determined. Subjects received information relevant to informed consent for stimulation medication and afterward were evaluated on their recall understanding and their final understanding. RESULTS: Knowledge was increased after the information session for all subjects. There was no significant difference between unadjusted baseline, recall, and final knowledge of control adolescents and parents. Although unadjusted baseline, recall, and final knowledge of ADHD adolescents is significantly less than that of parents, 78% of ADHD adolescents had final understanding scores within 2 standard deviations of parents' scores. After controlling for baseline understanding and cognitive variables, there was no significant difference between understanding of ADHD adolescents and ADHD parents, whereas control adolescents understanding scores were higher than that of their parents. Understanding was highly associated with mathematics achievement in all groups. CONCLUSION: The majority of adolescents with ADHD, both with and without a history of stimulant medication treatment, have understanding that is similar to their parents and their inclusion in the informed consent process should be encouraged. Extra care should be afforded to those adolescents with low numeracy or literacy to ensure their understanding.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".