Monetary Costs of ADHD in Canada: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ADHD is recognized as one of the most common neurodevelopmental disorders. Although it is widely considered a disorder of childhood, ADHD has been demonstrated to persist throughout the lifespan and can negatively impact people’s lives across several domains, resulting in reduced life quality and duration. While the clinical impacts of ADHD across these domains have been explored extensively, comparatively fewer studies have assessed the associated economic burden. Furthermore, while several studies have examined the monetary costs associated with of ADHD, particularly in association with healthcare service utilization and medication prescribing, in a number of countries around the world, the economic burden associated with ADHD in Canada is unclear. Thus, this paper has several objectives. The primary objective is to summarize research findings on the monetary cost of ADHD in Canada. Secondary objectives include exploring the components used to calculate financial costs in Canada, these components to international approaches, and briefly summarizing some of the most common non-monetary costs associated with ADHD in Canada. A search strategy was created to identify research literature and grey literature examining the monetary costs associated with ADHD. The search strategy was originally developed in PubMed, then modified to also be run in PsycINFO and Web of Science. Google scholar was also searched for additional grey literature, and a snowball technique was used to identify additional papers from reference lists. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist will be used to screen for relevant literature. Cost estimates extracted from included literature will be divided by domain, corresponding age group, and applicable country. As this is a scoping review, no hypotheses were created.
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 | 0.067 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.080 | 0.009 |
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".