Behavioural treatment recommendations in clinical practice guidelines for attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extent of behavioural treatment recommendations described in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) practice guidelines has not been examined. METHOD: A scoping review identified eight agency-based ADHD practice guidelines. Key components of behavioural treatment recommendations were summarized. RESULTS: All guidelines mentioned behavioural treatment as a consideration for managing ADHD, however, the extent to which they were detailed varied. Most guidelines provided lists of behavioural techniques but with minimal specifics regarding treatment delivery. CONCLUSIONS: There is far less detailing of behavioural approaches compared to pharmacological treatments for ADHD. Greater detailing of evidence-based behavioural approaches may foster improved delivery of high-quality behaviour treatment.
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 | 0.043 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".