Efficacy of an occupational intervention for quality of work life in ADHD: A randomized controlled trial protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While psychosocial interventions for ADHD in children are well-established, there is a gap in addressing ADHD symptoms that persist into adulthood, particularly those impacting occupational functioning. Adults living with ADHD often face challenges in the workplace related to time management, regulating attention, task prioritization, and meeting deadlines. METHODS: This study will evaluate the efficacy of a workplace intervention designed to improve the quality of work life in adults living with possible ADHD. A single-blind randomized controlled trial will compare an 8-week virtual psychosocial intervention to an active control group, with quality of work life as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes will include self-reported measures related to work such as job satisfaction, psychological needs and well-being, self-esteem, self-efficacy, cognitive functioning, self-compassion, and quality of work relationships. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month follow-up. In parallel, an optional awareness raising video will engage workplace stakeholders to improve ADHD literacy, reduce stigma, and offer neuroinclusive management strategies. Intention-to-treat analyses will use linear mixed-effects models. DISCUSSION: A participatory research approach was used to co-design the intervention material with workplace managers, community representatives, service providers and adults with lived experience. The research team will disseminate findings in scientific journals, conferences, and by sharing bilingual intervention materials with service providers and adults living with ADHD. This study fills a gap in addressing ADHD in the workplace, with findings that will inform intervention practices and improve workplace inclusion. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT06774378) on January 17, 2025.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.305 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".