Quality of life of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To review the results of studies of quality of life in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, three databases were searched and quality of life findings were reviewed. Comparisons were made with population norms for four studies that used the 50-item parent-reported Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ-PF50). Effect sizes were computed to estimate the clinical importance of differences in quality of life. In total, ten publications were identified representing 1382 children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Five different quality of life measures were used and compared with norms for the CHQ-PF50. Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder had more problems in all psychosocial domains and family activities. Effect sizes for aspects of physical health domains were small in size. Pooled effect sizes for the CHQ-PF50 psychosocial domains and family activities were as follows: mental health = -0.55; self-esteem = -0.75; parental impact - time = -0.85; role emotional/behavioral = -1.22; behavior = -1.44; parental impact - emotions = -1.45 and family activities = -1.67. Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have a poorer quality of life than children in the general population. Quality of life is an important outcome that is starting to receive attention in studies of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The use of tools such as the CHQ-PF50 shows how additional and useful information can be obtained that is relevant to a child with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and their family.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".