Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Problematic Romantic Relationships in Adulthood: A Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prominent neurodevelopmental disorders worldwide. Although viewed as a childhood behavioural disorder, longitudinal research has shown that ADHD symptoms frequently persist into adolescence and adulthood. Although previously overshadowed in the research literature, more attention is now being given to the connection between ADHD and romantic relationships in adults. This inattention can be attributed to the prioritization of child and adolescent populations and the emphasis on psychoeducational, cognitive, and behavioural problems. However, with the emergence of executive function (EF) models, more researchers are exploring the breadth of possible ADHD-related problems. In the past five years especially, studies have been pursuing the relational and emotional challenges faced by those with ADHD and their partners. Given the prevalence and extent of ADHD-related challenges, it is vital to identify how relationship problems emerge and provide effectivepsychosocial coping strategies for romantic partners to mitigate relationship dissatisfaction and turnover. This literature review evaluates research studies on ADHD and romantic relationships by exploring factors such as divorce rates, marital satisfaction, relationship length, negative emotions and habits, and distinctions between ADHD subtypes. This analysis identifies potential gaps in the literature and problems concerning replicability, generalizability, and sample representation in ADHD-related research studies. It then concludes by providing intervention suggestions for those involved in ADHD relationships.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".