Identifying the Information Needs and Format Preferences for Web-Based Content Among Adults With or Parents of Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: Three-Stage Qualitative Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a highly prevalent childhood and adult behavioral disorder. Internet searches for ADHD information are rising, particularly for diagnosis and treatment. Despite effective ADHD treatments, research suggests that there are delays in seeking help for ADHD. Identifying ways to shorten delays is important for minimizing morbidity associated with ADHD. One way to shorten these delays is to improve internet health information resources. Research shows that parents of children with ADHD feel that much of the information available is technical and not tailored for their child's needs and verbal instructions given by health care providers were too pharmacologically focused with limited information about how to manage and support ADHD symptoms in daily living. A majority of parents search the internet for general and pharmacological information for ADHD and prefer web-based resources for learning about ADHD, but web-based resources may be inaccurate and of low quality. Ensuring accurate information through the internet is an important step in assisting parents and adults in making informed decisions about the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD. OBJECTIVE: Although a great deal of information regarding ADHD is available on the internet, some information is not based on scientific evidence or is difficult for stakeholders to understand. Determining gaps in access to accurate ADHD information and stakeholder interest in the type of information desired is important in improving patient engagement with the health care system, but minimal research addresses these needs. This study aims to determine the information needs and formatting needs of web-based content for adults with ADHD and parents of children with ADHD in order to improve user experience and engagement. METHODS: This was a 3-phase study consisting of in-depth phone interviews about experiences with ADHD and barriers searching for ADHD-related information, focus groups where participants were instructed to consider the pathways by which they made decisions using web-based resources, and observing participants interacting with a newly developed website tailored for adults with potential ADHD and caregivers of children who had or might have ADHD. Phase 1 individual interviews and phase 2 focus groups identified the needs of the ADHD stakeholders related to website content and format. Interview and focus group findings were used to develop a website. Phase 3 used think-aloud interviews to evaluate website usability to inform the tailoring of the website based on user feedback. RESULTS: Interviews and focus group findings revealed preferences for ADHD website information and content, website layout, and information sources. Themes included a preference for destigmatizing information about ADHD, information specific to patient demographics, and evidence-based information tailored to lay audiences. CONCLUSIONS: ADHD stakeholders are specifically seeking positive information about ADHD presented in a user-friendly format.
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 | 0.028 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".