An Open Trial of a Brief Engagement Program for Caregivers of Children with ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This open trial evaluated the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of Bootcamp for ADHD (BC-ADHD), a novel, four-session, group intervention designed to prepare caregivers as informed consumers to engage in multimodal evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for ADHD. Participants were 59 primary caregivers (85% biologic mothers) of children recently diagnosed with ADHD within a co-located, subspecialty pediatric clinic (ages 5–11; 73% male). Results indicated BC-ADHD was feasible to deliver, as evidenced by high levels of program usability (i.e. content and process fidelity), and caregiver behavioral engagement (M attendance = 88%; M homework adherence = 2.95 homework, SD = 1.15, 0–4 range). Families were also very satisfied (M = 6.06, 1–7 range). At post-treatment, BC-ADHD resulted in increases in caregiver empowerment and acceptability of behavioral treatment and reductions in concerns about both behavioral (adverse effects and feasibility) and medication (adverse effects) treatments (absolute Cohen’s d = 0.27 to 0.35). At 6-month follow-up, effects were sustained for increases in caregiver empowerment and for reductions in concerns about both behavioral and medication treatments (absolute ds = 0.36 to 0.40). Sleeper effects were observed for increased medication acceptability and decreased affiliate stigma (absolute ds = 0.26 to 0.29). Child impairment was also reduced at follow-up (d = -0.58). The percentage of caregivers who initiated behavior therapy (Kendall’s w = 0.63) or medication (Kendall’s w = 0.15) increased from baseline to 6-month follow-up. These findings provide initial support for BC-ADHD as a promising engagement program to foster positive caregiver attitudes and initiation of EBTs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".