Adult ADHD and the use of mindfulness-based practice: A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational objectives The goal of this poster is to discuss a brief pilot study in which mindfulness – and yoga-based practices were utilized with a group of adult ADHD patients. Methods A sample of 10 adults participated in a pilot group which utilized the use mindfulness-based and yoga practices to address ADHD. This group was a single 2 hour session which was a pilot for a future 6-week psycho-educational group. The participants completed the following questionnaires: the Cognitive and Affective Mindfulness Scale (CAMS-R), the Freiburg mindfulness inventory and the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) in addition to a survey regarding levels of knowledge of yoga and mindfulness prior to the beginning of the session. The participants completed a survey at the end of the session. Results In our small sample group, all respondents reported that they found the session helpful (43% strongly agreed; 57% agreed). When asked if the participants were likely to explore and learn more about ADHD and meditation on their own based on what they learned in the session, most indicated that they were likely to (43% strongly agreed; 43% agreed and 14% were neutral). Conclusions The use of treatment modalities involving the use of meditation and mindfulness-based techniques in a group setting are thought to be helpful in addressing some of the target symptoms of ADHD. Based on the preliminary data collected in our small pilot study, our group intends to further explore the efficacy of meditation-based groups in the form of a 6-week training program in 2017. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".