Parents' priorities and preferences for treatment of children with ADHD: Qualitative inquiry in the MADDY study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parents' lived experiences of having a child with ADHD may shape their decision making regarding ADHD treatment options for their child. The aim of this study was to explore parents' experiences of living with a child with ADHD in the family and how their experiences influence their perspectives on treatment preferences and priorities. METHODS: A phenomenological qualitative design was used. Semistructured interviews were conducted with parents of children with ADHD who were enrolled in a multisite randomized controlled trial. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and transcripts at each site were double coded. Initial codes were derived directly from the text. Qualitative data were analysed with an inductive approach. RESULTS: Twenty-three parents were interviewed: eight from Alberta, Canada; eight from Portland, Oregon, USA; and seven from Columbus, Ohio, USA. Among the parents, 69% were married, 86% completed college education and 52% reported household income over $80,000. Among the children, the mean age was 9.6 years (SD = 1.8 years), 78% were boys and 48% were never medicated for their ADHD. Two major themes emerged from the analysis. Theme 1 was 'impact of ADHD on families within and outside the home' with the following subthemes: 'reconfiguring the home life', 'trial-and-error of accommodations at school' and 'responding to social pressures to fit in'. Theme 2 was 'enabling appropriate and accessible treatments for families' with the following subthemes: 'finding the "right fit" with professionals and treatments' and 'factors influencing inequitable access to treatments'. CONCLUSIONS: Parents described shared experiences and identified similar barriers, preferences and priorities for ADHD treatments regardless of demographic differences by site. Families desired access to family-centred, multimodal approaches to ADHD treatment. Further research is needed to identify the specific structural changes to healthcare, services and policies that will better support this approach.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".