Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
May 17, 2021
There are several very effective drugs for ADHD, and those treatment guidelines from professional organizations view these drugs as the first line of treatment for people with ADHD. The only exception is for preschool children where medication is only the first line of treatment for severe ADHD; the guidelines recommend that other preschoolers with ADHD be treated with non-pharmacologic treatments, when available. Despite these guidelines, some parents and patients have been persuaded by the media or the Internet that ADHD drugs are dangerous and that non-drug alternative are as good or even better. Parents and patients may also be influenced by media reports that doctors overprescribe ADHD drugs or that these drugs have serious side effects. Such reports typically simplify and/or exaggerate results from the scientific literature. Thus, many patients and parents of ADHD children are seeking non-drug treatments for ADHD. What are these non-pharmacologic treatments and do they work? My next series of blogs will discuss each of these treatments in detail. Here I'll give an overview of my evidenced-based taxonomy of non-pharmacologic treatments for ADHD described in more detail in a book I recently edited (Faraone, S. V. &Antshel, K. M. (2014). ADHD: Non-Pharmacologic Interventions. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Clin N Am 23, xiii-xiv.). I use the term "evidence-based" in the strict sense applied by the Oxford Center for Evidenced Based Medicine (OCEBM; http://www.cebm.net/). Most of the non-drug treatments for ADHD fall into three categories: behavioral, dietary, and neurocognitive. Behavioral interventions include training parents to optimize methods of reward and punishment for their ADHD child, teaching ADHD children social skills, and helping teachers apply principles of behavior management in their classrooms. Cognitive behavior therapy is a method that teaches behavioral and cognitive skills to adolescent and adult ADHD patients. Dietary interventions include special diets that exclude food coloring or eliminate foods believed to cause ADHD symptoms. Other dietary interventions provide supplements such as iron, zinc, or omega-3 fatty acids. The neurocognitive interventions typically use a computer-based learning setup to teach ADHD patients cognitive skills that will help reduce ADHD symptoms. There are two metrics to consider when thinking about the evidence base for these methods. The first is the quality of the evidence. For example, a study of 10 patients with no control group would be a low-quality study, but a study of 100 patients randomized to either a treatment or control group would be of high quality and the quality would be even higher if the people's rating patient outcomes did not know who was in each group. The second metric is the magnitude of the treatment effect. Does the treatment dramatically reduce ADHD symptoms, or does it have only a small effect? This metric is only available for high-quality studies that compare people treated with the method and people treated with a 'control' method that is not expected to affect ADHD. I used a statistical metric to quantify the magnitude of the effect. Zero means no effect, and larger numbers indicate better effects on treating ADHD symptoms. For comparison, the effect of stimulant drugs for ADHD is about 0.9, which is derived from a very strong evidence base. The effects of dietary treatments are smaller, about 0.4 to 0.5, but because the quality of the evidence is not strong, these results are not certain and the studies of food color exclusions apply primarily to children who have high intakes of such colorants. In contrast to the dietary studies, the evidence base for behavioral treatments is excellent, but the effects of these treatments on ADHD symptoms are very small, less than 0.1. Supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids also has a strong evidence base, but the magnitude of the effect is also small (0.1 to 0.2). The neurocognitive treatments have modest effects on ADHD symptoms (0.2 to 0.4) but their evidence base is weak. This review of non-drug treatments explains why ADHD drug treatments are usually used first. The evidence base is stronger, and they are more effective in reducing ADHD symptoms. There is, however, a role for some non-drug treatments. I'll be discussing that in subsequent blog posts. See more evidence-based information about ADHD at www.adhdinadults.com
Faraone, S. V.&Antshel, K. M. (2014). ADHD: Non-Pharmacologic Interventions. ChildAdolescPsychiatr Clin N Am 23, xiii-xiv.
Faraone, S. V. &Antshel, K. M. (2014).Towards an evidence-based taxonomy of nonpharmacologic treatments for ADHD.Child AdolescPsychiatr Clin N Am 23, 965-72.
A new study from Japan suggests that infants born with craniosynostosis are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD later in childhood. Craniosynostosis is a condition in which the bony plates of the skull fuse prematurely, leading to increased intracranial pressure.
The Background:
Craniosynostosis affects roughly one in every 2,000 births. When the skull’s natural seams close prematurely, it can restrict brain growth and increase intracranial pressure, potentially reducing blood flow to the brain. Because the condition is relatively rare, it has been difficult to study at scale until now.
The Study:
To overcome this, researchers tapped into a large Japanese insurance database compiled by JMDC, Inc., which holds records on around 20 million people, or about 15% of Japan’s population. Drawing on two decades of data, the team tracked over 338,000 mother-child pairs. Children with related genetic syndromes or chromosomal conditions such as Down syndrome were excluded to keep the focus on craniosynostosis itself.
Of the children studied, around 1,145 had craniosynostosis, and 7,325 were diagnosed with ADHD. After accounting for factors like sex, birth year, maternal age, mental health history, pregnancy infections, and birth complications, children with craniosynostosis were found to have roughly 2.4 times the risk of a subsequent ADHD diagnosis compared to those without it.
To test whether shared family genetics or home environment might be driving the association rather than the skull condition itself, the researchers conducted a separate analysis among siblings. The elevated risk remained at 2.2 times. The consistency of the finding across both analyses strengthens the case for a genuine biological link.
The Results:
The results point to raised intracranial pressure and restricted cerebral blood flow as plausible mechanisms, though the study’s observational design means causation cannot be confirmed. Ultimately, these findings highlight the need for proactive, long-term care strategies for those born with craniosynostosis. By establishing a solid link between premature skull fusion and a significantly higher risk of ADHD, the research demonstrates that medical care for this condition should not end once the skull's physical structure is addressed.
The Takeaway:
Pediatricians, neurologists, and parents can use this data to implement early, routine behavioral and developmental screening for these children as they grow. This additional support would ensure that those who do develop ADHD can receive timely interventions, educational aids, and therapies, ultimately improving their long-term developmental outcomes.
Children and adolescents with ADHD come into contact with child welfare services (CWS) far more often than their peers. There are many contributing factors to consider, including the fact that hyperactivity and impulsivity frequently lead to behaviors that are considered disruptive and cause academic and social difficulties. Many of these children are also growing up in households marked by parental conflict and/or single-parent arrangements. All of these circumstances can compound vulnerability and, historically, increase the likelihood of CWS involvement.
Background:
In Norway, Child Welfare Services operate at the municipal level and are legally required in every local authority. Their scope spans investigation, family support, and, where necessary, out-of-home placement and ongoing monitoring. Grounds for intervention include abuse, neglect, behavioral or psychosocial difficulties, and inadequate care-giving. Norwegian CWS works closely with health, education, and social services and places a strong emphasis on keeping families together. Compared with systems in countries such as the United States, Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic, the Norwegian approach sets a lower bar for intervention and leans toward home-based support, while setting a higher bar for out-of-home placements. This model is shared by other Nordic countries, as well as Germany and the United Kingdom.
Research into whether ADHD medication affects child welfare caseloads is remarkably sparse. A single Danish study previously found that medication treatment accounted for much of an observed decline in foster care cases, but no study had examined medication’s broader impact on CWS involvement, covering both supportive interventions and out-of-home placements.
Norway’s universal single-payer health system and comprehensive national registers make population-wide research of this kind feasible. Drawing on these resources, a Norwegian research team set out to test whether ADHD medication reduces children’s contact with CWS and their need for out-of-home placement.
The Study:
This study included all 5,930 children and adolescents aged 5 to 14 who received a clinical ADHD diagnosis from Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services between 2009 and 2011. Each was followed for up to 4 years post-diagnosis, the upper age limit being 18, at which point CWS jurisdiction ends. This group was compared with more than 53,000 peers who had no CWS contact during the same period.
The results showed a meaningful, though not dramatic, association between medication and reduced CWS contact. At one year, treated children had approximately 7% fewer contacts with CWS; by two years, that figure had risen to around 12%. The effect then narrowed, settling at roughly 7–8% reductions at the three- and four-year marks.
The picture for out-of-home placements is considerably less convincing. The research team highlighted a 3% reduction at two-year follow-up, but this finding barely crossed the threshold of statistical significance, and no effect was observed at the one-, three-, or four-year follow-up points.
The Take-Away:
The authors concluded that pharmacological treatment for ADHD is associated with reductions in both supportive CWS services and out-of-home placements among children affected by clinicians’ prescribing decisions in Norway. A more cautious reading of the same data, however, would emphasize an overall reduction in CWS contact of roughly 8%, while treating the out-of-home placement finding as, at best, inconclusive.
Stimulant medications, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamines (Adderall), are among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. In the United States alone, prescription rates have climbed more than 50% over the past decade, driven largely by growing awareness of ADHD in both children and adults. Yet stimulants also have a long history of non-medical use, and concerns about their psychological risks persist among patients, families, and clinicians alike.
Two major studies now offer the clearest picture yet of what that risk actually looks like, and who it may affect.
The Background:
Before turning to the research, it helps to understand the landscape. A notable share of stimulant users misuse their medication: roughly one in four takes it in ways other than prescribed, and about one in eleven meets criteria for Prescription Stimulant Use Disorder (PSUD). Counterintuitively, most people with PSUD aren’t obtaining drugs illicitly — they’re misusing their own prescriptions.
This distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic use turns out to be critical when evaluating psychosis risk.
The Study:
A comprehensive meta-analysis by Jangra and colleagues pooled data across more than a dozen studies to compare psychotic outcomes in people using stimulants therapeutically versus non-therapeutically. The contrast was striking.
Among therapeutic users (more than 220,000 individuals taking stimulants at prescribed doses under medical supervision), psychotic episodes occurred in roughly one in five hundred people. When symptoms did appear, they typically emerged after prolonged treatment or in individuals with pre-existing psychiatric vulnerabilities, and they usually resolved when the medication was stopped.
Among non-therapeutic users (over 8,000 participants across twelve studies, many using methamphetamine or high-dose amphetamines), nearly one in three experienced psychotic symptoms. These episodes tended to be more severe, involving persecutory delusions and hallucinations, with faster onset and a greater likelihood of recurrence or persistence.
The biology underlying this difference is well understood. When stimulants are taken orally at guideline-recommended doses, they produce moderate, gradual changes in neurotransmitter activity central to attention and executive functions. The brain tolerates these changes relatively well. Non-therapeutic use, by contrast, often involves much higher doses that are frequently delivered through non-oral routes such as injection or smoking. This produces a rapid, excessive surge in dopamine activity, which is precisely the neurochemical pattern associated with psychotic symptoms.
The takeaway here is not that therapeutic stimulant use is risk-free, but that risk is strongly modulated by dose, route of administration, and individual psychiatric history. Clinicians are advised to monitor patients with pre-existing mood or psychotic disorders, particularly carefully.
A Nationwide Study Focuses on Methylphenidate Specifically:
Where the meta-analysis cast a wide net, a large-scale population study by Healy and colleagues drilled into a specific and clinically pressing question: does methylphenidate (the most commonly prescribed ADHD medication, also known as Ritalin) increase the risk of developing a psychotic disorder?
To find out, the researchers analyzed Finland's national health insurance database, tracking nearly 700,000 individuals diagnosed with ADHD. Finland's single-payer system made this kind of comprehensive, long-term tracking possible in a way that fragmented healthcare systems rarely allow.
Critically, the team adjusted for a range of confounding factors that have clouded previous research, including sex, parental education, parental history of psychosis, and the number of psychiatric visits and diagnoses prior to the ADHD diagnosis itself (a proxy for illness severity). After these adjustments, they found no significant difference in the risk of schizophrenia or non-affective psychosis between patients treated with methylphenidate and those who remained unmedicated. This held true even among patients with four or more years of continuous methylphenidate use.
The Take-Away:
When considered together, these studies offer meaningful reassurance without encouraging complacency.
For patients and families weighing ADHD treatment, the evidence suggests that methylphenidate used as prescribed does not increase psychosis risk, even over years of use. The rare cases of stimulant-associated psychosis in therapeutic settings are typically linked to high doses, pre-existing vulnerabilities, or both, and tend to resolve with discontinuation.
For clinicians, the findings reinforce the importance of baseline psychiatric assessment before initiating stimulant therapy, ongoing monitoring in patients with mood or psychotic disorder histories, and clear patient education about the risks of dose escalation or non-oral use.
The picture that emerges is one of a meaningful distinction between a medication used carefully within its therapeutic window and a drug misused outside of it. This distinction matters enormously when communicating risk to patients, policymakers, and the public.
_logo%201.svg)
