ADHD Symptoms Increased During the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Meta-Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Emerging research suggests that the Covid-19 pandemic has disproportionately and adversely affected children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). The purpose of this meta-analysis is to consolidate the findings from studies that examined changes in ADHD symptoms from before to during the pandemic. METHOD: Database searches of PsycINFO, ERIC, PubMed, and ProQuest were used to identify relevant studies, theses, and dissertations. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies met specific inclusion criteria and were coded based on various study characteristics. Twelve studies examined ADHD symptoms longitudinally and six studies assessed ADHD symptoms retroactively and during the pandemic. Data from 6,491 participants from 10 countries were included. Results indicated that many children and/or their caregivers reported an increase in child ADHD symptoms during the Covid-19 pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This review points to a global increase in ADHD symptoms and has implications for the prevalence and management of ADHD during the post-pandemic recovery.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it