Psychological Effects of the COVID-19 Imposed Lockdown on Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Cross-Sectional Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The psychological effects of the COVID-19 government-imposed lockdown have been studied in several populations. These effects however have not been studied in adult populations with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). OBJECTIVE: We wanted to investigate the psychological effects of the COVID-19 imposed lockdown on an adult population with ADHD. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey by administering the Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale-7, Brief Adjustment Scale-6, Perceived Stress Scale, and Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support to a pragmatic sample of adults with ADHD. RESULTS: In total, 24 individuals (male: n=18, 75%; female: n=6, 25%; age: mean 21.75 years, SD 1.85 years) were included in this study. The adults with ADHD we surveyed had significant levels of emotional distress during the COVID-19 pandemic period. However, there was no evidence of significant deterioration to the mental health of our sample during the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: When treatment for ADHD is maintained, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of adults with ADHD are mild. Targeted psychological interventions may be useful in such circumstances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".