Associations Between Family and Community Protective Factors and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Outcomes Among US Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence has established the association between risk factors and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) severity, but less is known about factors that may have protective effects on clinical, academic, and social outcomes among children with ADHD. OBJECTIVE: To examine associations between family cohesion, caregiver social support, community support, and (1) ADHD severity, (2) school engagement, and (3) difficulty making or keeping friends. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of school-aged and adolescent children with ADHD using data from the 2016 National Survey of Children's Health. Our outcomes were (1) parent-rated ADHD severity, (2) school engagement, and (3) difficulty making or keeping friends. Our independent variables were (1) family cohesion, (2) caregiver social support, and (3) community support. We used logistic regression models to examine associations between our independent variables and each of our outcome variables, adjusting for child and parent sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: In our sample (N = 4,122, weighted N = 4,734,322), children exposed to family cohesion and community support had lower odds of moderate to severe ADHD [adjusted OR (aOR): 0.73 (0.55-0.97); aOR: 0.73 (0.56-0.95), respectively], higher odds of school engagement [aOR: 1.72, (1.25-2.37); aOR: 1.38, (1.04-1.84), respectively], and lower odds of difficulty making or keeping friends [aOR: 0.64, (0.48-0.85); aOR: 0.52, (0.40-0.67), respectively]. CONCLUSION: Among children with ADHD, family cohesion and community support show protective effects in clinical, academic, and social outcomes. Systematically identifying family- and community-level strengths may be important components of multimodal treatment strategies 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".