MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137502895 · doi:10.1080/15389588.2014.926341

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Other Mental Health Problems, Substance Use, and Driving: Examination of a Population-Based, Representative Canadian Sample

2014· article· en· W2137502895 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Evelyn Vingilis, Robert E. Mann, Patricia Erıckson, Maggie E. Toplak, Nathan J. Kolla, Jane Seeley, Umesh Jain

Bibliographic record

VenueTraffic Injury Prevention · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenWestern UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAlcohol Use Disorders Identification TestPsychiatryPoison controlAnxietyCannabisAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderInjury preventionMedicinePopulationMental healthSuicide preventionSubstance abuseAlcohol use disorderDistressOccupational safety and healthClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthAlcohol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships among self-reported screening measures of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), other psychiatric problems, and driving-related outcomes in a provincially representative sample of adults 18 years and older living in the province of Ontario, Canada. METHODS: The study examined the results of the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health (CAMH) Ontario Monitor, an ongoing repeated cross-sectional telephone survey of Ontario adults over a 2-year period. Measures included ADHD measures (Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale-V1.1 [ASRS-V1.1], previous ADHD diagnosis, ADHD medication use); psychiatric distress measures (General Health Questionnaire [GHQ12], use of pain, anxiety, and depression medication); antisocial behavior measure (The Antisocial Personality Disorder Scale from the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview [APD]); substance use and abuse measures (alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine), Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT), Alcohol, Smoking and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST), driving-related outcomes (driving after drinking, driving after cannabis use, street racing, collisions in past year), and sociodemographics (gender, age, vehicle-kilometers traveled). RESULTS: A total of 4,014 Ontario residents were sampled, of which 3,485 reported having a valid driver's license. Overall, 3.22% screened positive for ADHD symptoms on the ASRS-V1.1 screening tool. A greater percentage of those who screened positive were younger, reported previous ADHD diagnosis and medication use, distress, antisocial behavior, anti-anxiety and antidepressant medication use, substance use, and social problems compared to those who screened negative. However, there were no statistically significant differences between those who screened positive or negative for ADHD symptoms on self-reported driving after having 2 or more drinks in the previous hour; within an hour of using cannabis, marijuana, or hash; or in a street race or collision involvement as a driver in the past year. When a sequential regression was conducted to predict self-reported collisions, younger age and higher weekly kilometers driven showed higher odds of collision involvement, and the odds ratio for cannabis use ever approached statistical significance. DISCUSSION: This study is the first population-based study of a representative sample of adults 18 years and older living in Ontario, Canada. These results showed no relationship between the ADHD screen and collision when age, sex, and kilometers driven are controlled for. However, these analyses are based on self-report screeners and not psychiatric diagnoses and a limited sample of ADHD respondents. Thus, these results should be interpreted with caution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTraffic Injury PreventionSame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207