Development and Dissemination of Online Evidence-Based Information for Youths with ADHD and Their Adult Supports
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Misconceptions and lack of awareness of ADHD remain key barriers to adolescents and young adults receiving ADHD care. Although online resources have potential for wide dissemination, they vary considerably in quality. To address this gap, we developed Teaching Online Organizational and virtual Learning Skills (TOOLS) as a free online psychoeducational resource for adolescents and young adults with ADHD and their adult supports. TOOLS includes 11 animated videos and accompanying informational handouts describing organizational and cognitive-behavioral strategies for managing ADHD. Organizational skills having the strongest evidence base for ADHD while other included strategies are still emerging. TOOLS is available in English, Mandarin, and Spanish.Objective The current study examined the reach, engagement, and perceived utility of TOOLS.Method Google Analytics data was used to assess engagement of the TOOLS webpages. In addition, 128 individuals who accessed TOOLS (Mage = 40.02 years, 85.9% female, 85.9% non-Hispanic, 76.6% White) completed surveys at baseline and 1-month follow-up.Results From October 2021 to October 2022, TOOLS generated 19,876 unique pageviews 12,631 clicks on the videos, and 7,807 clicks on the handouts. Survey participants reported a mean helpfulness rating of 3.14/4 at baseline. The average rating of intended skill use at baseline was 3.13/4 and the average rating of actual use at follow-up was 2.53/4. Frequent responses for positive feedback included digestibility, informative content, practicality, engaging visuals, and relatability. Frequent suggestions for improvements included additional content, especially for adults, quality control, support for implementation, and increase accessibility.Conclusions TOOLS demonstrates that evidence-based ADHD psychoeducational information can be widely disseminated online and can successfully engage viewers, but additional strategies must be considered for culturally equitable design and dissemination. Presenting clinical information with an emphasis on engagement, brevity, and digestibility may be particularly helpful for individuals with ADHD.
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 | 0.033 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".