Tastes and colours: a qualitative study of the lived experience of methylphenidate prescribed for children with a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) refer to physical, cognitive, and behavioural symptoms in an individual whose mother consumed alcohol during pregnancy. It is the leading cause of non-genetic avoidable mental disability, with an estimated worldwide prevalence of 1%. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) diagnostic criteria are met for 50–80% of patients with FASD. Methylphenidate (MPH) is the first-line pharmacological treatment for ADHD. This study aims to explore the lived experience of children with FASD taking MPH and their caregivers to adapt prescribing modalities by considering different ways to administer the drugs. We hope to improve the therapeutic alliance between the children and their caregivers by gaining an insiders’ view of the medication perception. Semi-structured interviews with children and their caregivers were conducted in this qualitative study. Data collection by purposive sampling continued until we reached theoretical sufficiency. Data were analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis. We conducted 16 semi-structured interviews: 8 with the children aged 7 to 12, 5 boys and 3 girls and 8 with their caregivers. The analysis showed that inadequate palatability and capsule form experiences were the leading causes of children's non-adherence to the treatment. MPH appeared to be a valuable aid for caregivers even if they had concerns about its potential toxicity. However, it is necessary to identify caregivers' expectations concerning MPH to adapt the prescription in terms of choice of specialty and intake modalities. Regular support was required to reduce caregivers’ fears of dependence,personality transformation and long-term adverse effects. Information on palatability should be given when prescribing MPH to children with ADHD as well as its possible side effects or toxicity. It highlights the need for further studies of the experience of palatability of drugs prescribed to children. When prescribing a treatment, it is necessary to understand the child's perspectives via mediators to co-construct common representations for better therapeutical adherence.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".