MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117571270 · doi:10.1016/j.jaac.2025.12.016

Meta-Analysis: Parenting Children and Adolescents With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Compared to Healthy Controls

2025· article· en· W7117571270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tudor Văidean, Anca Dobrean, Elena Predescu, Marie B.H. Yap, Raluca Georgescu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationIntervention (counseling)MEDLINEDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to quantify differences in parenting practices between families of children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and typically developing controls. Method We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing parenting practices among children and adolescents (≤18 years) with a specialist-confirmed ADHD diagnosis and non-clinical controls. PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched from inception through August 12, 2025, without language restrictions. Studies were eligible if they used validated instruments to assess at least one parenting dimension and reported comparative data. A total of 62 studies from 19 countries were included (N = 13,105; ADHD=6,543; controls=6,562). We computed pooled standardized mean differences (Hedges g ) using random-effects models and evaluated heterogeneity ( Q and I 2 ), 95% prediction intervals, and risk of bias (Newcastle–Ottawa Scale). Meta-regression and subgroup analyses examined potential moderators. Results Parents of children with ADHD showed significantly lower levels of positive parenting ( g = –0.37, 95% CI=–0.46 to –0.27) and higher levels of negative parenting ( g = 0.47, 95% CI=0.39 to 0.56) than controls. The strongest effects were found for authoritative parenting ( g = –0.56), warmth ( g = –0.45), abuse ( g = 0.60), family conflict ( g = 0.52), and hostility ( g = 0.51). Heterogeneity was high ( I 2 ≥ 90%), and no consistent moderators or small-study effects were identified. Conclusion Parenting differs significantly between families of children with and without ADHD. Interventions should promote structured, warm, and non-coercive parenting. High heterogeneity and cross-sectional designs limit causal inference. Study registration information Comparison between parenting factors in the upbringing of ADHD vs. non-ADHD children and adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024623095.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0240.065
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.303 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent PsychiatrySame topicAttention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderFrench-language works237,207