Evaluating a Virtual Adult ADHD Group in a Primary Care Setting: Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• Virtual adult ADHD Group decreased ADHD, anxiety, and depression symptoms. • Functional improvements reported in life skills, work, school, and family domains. • Participants’ self-concept improved via normalization and validation of ADHD impacts. • This virtual group-based adult ADHD intervention is feasible in a real-world setting. • A follow-up study will examine outcomes in a more rigorous RCT design. A treatment effectiveness study was conducted on a 9-week CBT-based group intervention for adults with ADHD. The intervention, based on the Jeavons et al. (2018) Adult ADHD Treatment Handbook, was delivered virtually by a multidisciplinary team at [blinded for review] Family Health Team in [City], [Country]. Treatment topics included understanding the impacts of ADHD and its common comorbidities, coping skills for managing impulsivity, mood, organization, time, money, and interpersonal relationships. Quantitative data (N = 46) was analyzed in a pre-/post-treatment design using symptom measures of ADHD (ASRS), ADHD-related functional impairment (WFIRS), anxiety (GAD-7) and depression (PHQ-9). Results indicated that ADHD symptoms significantly decreased, with a small effect size t(45) = –2.852, p = 0.003, d = 0.421. Five subscales of the WFIRS demonstrated significant improvements with medium effect sizes. The greatest functional improvements were seen in Self-concept t(44) = –3.858, p < 0.001, d = 0.575, and Life skills t(44) = –3.382, p < 0.001, d = 0.504. Significant improvements with small to medium effect sizes were also demonstrated in depression t(43) = –2.494, p = 0.008, d = 0.376 and anxiety symptoms t(43) = –2.851, p = 0.003, d = 0.430. Thematic analysis of anonymous group satisfaction survey responses indicated that participants experienced positive changes in self-concept through normalization and validation of ADHD life impacts. This pilot study provides valuable information about the feasibility and promising initial outcomes of a virtual group-based adult ADHD intervention in a real-world setting. A follow-up study will examine outcomes in a more rigorous randomized controlled trial design.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".