Treatment choices and experiences in attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder: relations to parents’ beliefs and attributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite their potential to influence treatment decisions, parents' beliefs and attitudes regarding attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have not been widely studied. This research examined relations between parents' beliefs and attitudes and their experiences with different treatments for their children's ADHD. METHODS: Canadian parents of 73, 5- to 13-year-old, boys with ADHD completed questionnaires measuring beliefs about ADHD, attributions for ADHD behaviours, and treatment experiences. RESULTS: Parents reported using primarily behaviour management and stimulant medications in treating ADHD. Approximately half of the families also used diet/vitamin therapies. Parents were knowledgeable about ADHD and held generally accurate beliefs. They saw ADHD symptoms as predominantly internal to the child and as relatively enduring and pervasive. Parents' beliefs were related to their use of different treatments and parents who used less empirically supported treatments were more likely to see ADHD behaviours as internal to the child, enduring and pervasive. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the importance of assessing parents' use of alternate treatments for ADHD and the potential role of parents' beliefs and attributions in shaping treatment choices.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".