School participation, supports and barriers of children with and without attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the differences in participation patterns, environmental barriers and supports across specific activities typically done at school between children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and without ADHD. DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: The children and adolescents with ADHD were selected from those routinely referred to the Health Sciences University Research and Training Hospital's child and adolescent psychiatry department, which is a reference centre for the region. PARTICIPANTS: =190, mean age 11.66 years, SD 2.96 years) and their primary caregivers were included in the study. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth was used to evaluate children. RESULTS: The mean frequency of participation in five different school activities was significantly lower in children with ADHD than in children without ADHD, with moderate to large effect sizes. Children with ADHD were less likely to be involved in any activity type than children without ADHD, with moderate to large effect sizes. The characteristics of the school environment typically made it more challenging for children with ADHD to participate than for children without ADHD, with moderate effect sizes. CONCLUSIONS: Children with ADHD have challenges in classroom activities and with socialising with peers outside class, cognitive demands, sensorial qualities and safety. Relationships with friends, cultural acceptance and support could improve the school participation of children 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".