Randomized Trial of First-Line Behavioral Intervention to Reduce Need for Medication in Children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study conducted in an analogue summer treatment setting showed that when concurrently receiving behavioral intervention, many children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) did not need medication or maximized responsiveness at very low doses. The present study followed participants in that summer study into the subsequent school year to investigate whether the same pattern would extend to the natural school and home settings. There were 127 unmedicated children with ADHD between the ages of 5 and 13 who were randomly assigned to receive or not receive behavioral consultation (BC) at the start of the school year. Children were evaluated by teachers and parents each week to determine if central nervous system stimulant treatment was needed. Children who received BC were approximately half as likely those who did not (NoBC) to initiate medication use each week at school or home and used lower doses when medicated at school. This produced a 40% reduction in total methylphenidate exposure over the course of the school year. BC and NoBC groups did not significantly differ on end-of-year teacher or parent ratings of behavior, which were positive. Moreover, BC and NoBC groups did not significantly differ in cost of treatment; although children in the BC condition accrued additional costs via the BC, these costs were offset by the associated delay and reduction in medication use. Results add to a growing literature suggesting that the use of low-intensity behavioral intervention as a first-line treatment reduces or eliminates the need for medication in children with 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".