Barriers and facilitators to implementing a Canadian shared-care ADHD program in pediatric settings in Shanghai: a consolidated framework for implementation research approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The vast majority of children with Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) do not have access to proper diagnosis and treatment in China. The goal of this project is to identify the challenges and facilitators in implementing a Canadian ADHD Shared Care Pathways program in pediatric settings in Shanghai region. METHODS: Purposive semi-structured focus groups were conducted on a total of 13 healthcare practitioners from the Shanghai Xinuha, Ninghai and Chongming hospitals. Two independent researchers conducted a thematic analysis of the data with themes emerging based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). RESULTS: Notable barriers identified by participants included: (1) lack of knowledge in the management of ADHD, primarily among general practitioners; (2) lack of resources such as lack of staff, time, and medication for ADHD; (3) challenges in implementing an international multicentre intervention (such as communication difficulties between teams and integration of resources available in different hospitals); and (4) mental health stigma, difficulties in identifying ADHD patients, and logistical problems related to medication procurement rules put in place by provincial governments. Notable facilitators included: (1) the strong motivation of stakeholders and their confidence in their ability to learn and subsequently execute action plans to achieve the implementation goal; (2) the compatibility between the values and goals of the stakeholders and those of the program despite some cultural tension, a positive learning climate, strong tensions for change, and the high interest of organization leaders in engaging in the program (3) the perceived benefits of the program, such as standardization of the diagnostic and treatment process, and engaging primary care providers in ADHD management; and (4) the strong relationship between participating institutions and schools as well as provincial health initiatives available to support collaborative models of care. Mixed factors to implementation were also explored. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate training of health care providers, cultural adaptation of the program, increase public awareness about ADHD to decrease stigma, as well as strong project management and guidelines that clearly describe the role and expectations of each team member appeared essential to successful implementation.
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 | 0.071 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".