Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Is There an App for That? Suitability Assessment of Apps for Children and Young People With ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a complex highly comorbid disorder, which can have a huge impact on those with ADHD, their family, and the community around them. ADHD is currently managed using pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions. However, with advances in technology and an increase in the use of mobile apps, managing ADHD can be augmented using apps specifically designed for this population. However, little is known regarding the suitability and usability of currently available apps. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the suitability of the top 10 listed apps for children and young people with ADHD and clinicians who work with them. It is hypothesized that mobile apps designed for this population could be more suitably designed for this population. METHODS: The top 10 listed apps that are specifically targeted toward children and young people with ADHD in the United Kingdom were identified via the Google Play (n=5) and iTunes store (n=5). Interviews were then undertaken with 5 clinicians who specialize in treating this population and 5 children and young people with ADHD themselves, to explore their opinions of the 10 apps identified and what they believe the key components are for apps to be suitable for this population. RESULTS: Five themes emerged from clinician and young people interviews: the accessibility of the technology, the importance of relating to apps, addressing ADHD symptoms and related difficulties, age appropriateness, and app interaction. Three additional themes emerged from the clinician interviews alone: monitoring symptoms, side effects and app effect on relationships, and the impact of common comorbid conditions. The characteristics of the apps did not appear to match well with the views of our sample. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the apps may not be suitable in meeting the complex needs associated with this condition. Further research is required to explore the value of apps for children and young people with ADHD and their families and, in particular, any positive role for apps in the management of ADHD in this age group. A systematic review on how technology can be used to engage this population and how it can be used to help them would be a useful way forward. This could be the platform to begin exploring the use of apps further.
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 | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".