Comparison of the burden of illness for adults with ADHD across seven countries: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to expand the understanding of the burden of illness experienced by adults with Attention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) living in different countries and treated through different health care systems. METHODS: Fourteen focus groups and five telephone interviews were conducted in seven countries in North America and Europe, comprised of adults who had received a diagnosis of ADHD. The countries included Canada, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, United Kingdom, and United States (two focus groups in each country). There were 108 participants. The focus groups were designed to elicit narratives of the experience of ADHD in key domains of symptoms, daily life, and social relationships. Consonant with grounded theory, the transcripts were analyzed using descriptive coding and then themed into larger domains. RESULTS: Participants' statements regarding the presentation of symptoms, childhood experience, impact of ADHD across the life course, addictive and risk-taking behavior, work and productivity, finances, relationships and psychological health impacts were similarly themed across all seven countries. These similarities were expressed through the domains of symptom presentation, childhood experience, medication treatment issues, impacts in adult life and across the life cycle, addictive and risk-taking behavior, work and productivity, finances, psychological and social impacts. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that symptoms associated with adult ADHD affect individuals similarly in different countries and that the relevance of the diagnostic category for adults is not necessarily limited to certain countries and sociocultural milieus.
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 | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".