Shared Care Models in the Treatment of Pediatric Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of shared/collaborative care between mental health-care providers and primary care providers (PCPs) on the outcomes of children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). This evaluation will be very helpful in the allocation of ADHD resources for models with the strongest evidence. METHODS: Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis statement, we searched for randomized controlled trials, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies on shared/collaborative care models in the treatment of ADHD. Using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CENTRAL databases from January 2000 to December 2016, we retrieved English language articles for review. The validation search identified 75 records. Five studies met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed in this systematic review. There were insufficient data for a meta-analysis. The included studies involved 655 children and adolescents who had a diagnosis of ADHD. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias was used to estimate bias. RESULTS: = .04-.01). The data indicated that the models were associated with increased PCPs' comfort levels, but the evidence for increased capacity for diagnosing and managing ADHD was weaker. CONCLUSIONS: This review concludes that the current studies do not show strong evidence for the outcome of collaboration between PCPs and mental health professionals on ADHD management. Future research should consider providing education to PCPs on management guidelines prior to conducting the trials, and more innovation is needed to discover methods of collaboration that affect the direct care of ADHD.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".