ADHD is like a bat – it is neither a bird nor an animal Saudi Parents’ Discourses About Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ADHD is the most commonly diagnosed neurobehavioral disorder among children. While ADHD in Western countries has long been recognized and increasingly diagnosed in recent years, there is a growing recognition of this disorder as a significant cross-cultural phenomenon. Saudi studies to date vary in their estimation of prevalence of ADHD, with overall prevalence estimated to be between 3.5% and 6.5%, while the worldwide prevalence of ADHD is 5.29%. This study uncovers the lived experience of parents with a child who has had an ADHD diagnosis in Saudi Arabia, and examines how their experiences can be recognized in relation to the multiple and competing discourses of ADHD that frame their daily lives. Which discourses do parents draw upon – and reinforce – as they describe their experiences of ADHD, and which discourses do they resist? This study carried out in-depth interviews with seven Saudi parents who have at least one child diagnosed with ADHD, or any of its subtypes, between the ages of two and 11. Foucauldian discourse analysis (FDA) is applied in analyzing parental ADHD discourses, uncovering how these parents made sense of ADHD pre-and post-diagnosis. Four main discourses emerged in the process: normal behavior (pre-diagnosis), supernatural/religious, medical, and social environment (post-diagnosis). This paper also emphasises that the causes of ADHD must be considered in the wider context of misconceptions and uncertainty among Saudi parents. All the participants in this research were influenced by a combination of discourses in their attempts to make sense of their children’s symptoms.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".