Parenting Practices in Families of Children With Comorbid ADHD and Anxiety Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Comorbid anxiety disorders affect up to 28% of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). While coercive parenting is often linked to ADHD and overprotectiveness to anxiety disorders (ADs), little is known about parenting practices in children with both disorders (ADHD+ADs). This systematic review and meta-analysis examined parenting practices in children aged 5-12 years with ADHD+ADs. METHODS: Studies were identified through PsycINFO (Ovid), Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, and Web of Science from inception date to January 23, 2025. Of the 1838 records screened, four studies were included in the review, and three were included in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: Compared to parents of children with ADHD alone, those of children with ADHD+ADs reported greater use of anxiety-related parenting practices (k = 3, g = 0.32, 95% CI = 0.11, 0.53, p = 0.002) and fewer positive parenting practices (k = 3, g = -0.35, 95% CI = -0.55, -0.14, p = 0.001). No significant differences were found in ADHD-related parenting practices (k = 2, g = 0.27, 95% CI = -0.16, 0.70, p = 0.26). CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that families of children with ADHD+ADs may be characterized by increased anxiety-related parenting practices and reduced positive parenting compared to families of children with ADHD alone. Further research is needed to inform the development of targeted interventions.
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 | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".