P01-296-Comparison of the burden of illness for adults with adhd across seven countries: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Around 65% of children with ADHD continue to be impaired by symptoms in adulthood. Nevertheless, ADHD in adults is often poorly understood and misdiagnosed globally, notably in Europe. Furthermore, few data are available comparing the experiences of adult patients with ADHD from different geographical regions. Objectives To examine the symptoms and impairments associated with ADHD in adults from the patient's perspective and to better understand how culture, country of residence and different ADHD management approaches can impact on the experiences of adults with the condition. Methods Data were obtained from focus groups in the USA, Canada, UK, The Netherlands, Italy, France and Germany. Patients participated in semi-structured interviews using a series of open-ended questions relating to medical history, life experience, daily impacts of ADHD and psychological and social issues. Transcripts of the interviews were analysed based on grounded theory qualitative data analysis methodology. Results Data from 14 focus groups representing 103 adults with ADHD (mean age 36, 47% female) were analysed. Reported impacts were consistent across focus groups with respect to the participants’ history of diagnosis, symptoms, medication use, childhood experiences, and psychological and social issues as adults, regardless of country of residence, culture, treatment patterns or health care systems. Minimal differences were reported with respect to the perception of ADHD, treatment options and costs of care. This poster will focus on European results. Conclusion The burden of illness and impacts of ADHD in adults are largely independent of culture or country of residence. Supported by Shire Development, Inc.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Qualitative | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".