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.
The Background:
Food insecurity is a widespread public‑health problem. Food insecurity refers to limited or uncertain access to enough safe, nutritious food. This term is used to describe households that sometimes or often can’t afford enough food or can only buy cheaper, less‑healthy options.
In the United States, almost eleven million children and teens (14%) lived in food‑insecure households in 2019. By 2023, the share of households with food‑insecure children and adolescents was estimated to have risen to about 18%.
Food insecurity is linked to worse physical health in children, including conditions like anemia (low red‑blood‑cell count), asthma, and delays in physical or mental development. It is also associated with problems in thinking and conduct (for example, aggressive behavior, anxiety, depression, and trouble concentrating or sitting still).
Those thinking and behavior problems can look a lot like ADHD (persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. This can make it hard for clinicians to tell whether symptoms come from ADHD itself, from the stress of poverty and food insecurity, or a mix of both. That overlap can complicate diagnosis and sometimes lead to misdiagnosis.
Smaller recent studies have looked at mental‑health links and found higher odds of ADHD and other mental‑health conditions among food‑insecure children aged 5–11 years. In one set of findings, moderate food insecurity was associated with 50% greater odds of an ADHD diagnosis and severe food insecurity with about 67% greater odds relative to food‑secure children.
The Study:
Because many past studies looked at single risk factors or only measured symptom severity, fewer investigations have focused specifically on household food insecurity as it relates to actual ADHD diagnoses and how that might matter for care. To address that gap, researchers used multiple years (2016–2022) of data from the U.S. National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). This survey is designed to be nationally representative and asks parents about their child’s health, including whether a doctor or other clinician has diagnosed ADHD.
The study included 232,571 children and adolescents (ages 3–17) and used statistical methods to adjust for other factors that could affect ADHD risk. Those factors included the child’s sex and race/ethnicity; the mother’s age; family income expressed as a percentage of the federal poverty level (a government measure used to classify income groups); the highest level of parent education; adverse childhood experiences (such as exposure to abuse, household substance use, or parental separation); birthweight (for example, low birthweight); and not getting enough sleep. Adjusting for these variables helps isolate the association between food insecurity and ADHD, though it cannot prove cause and effect.
The Results:
In this large, nationally representative sample, the researchers found a clear dose–response relationship: as the level of household food insecurity increased, so did the odds of a child having a clinician‑diagnosed ADHD (as reported by parents). In other words, greater food insecurity was linked to a higher likelihood of ADHD.
Compared with children in households that “could always afford to eat good, nutritious meals” (the reference group), the study found the following increases in odds of ADHD: children in households that “could always afford enough to eat but not always the kinds of food we should eat” had about 30% greater odds; children in households that sometimes “could not afford enough to eat” had about 55% greater odds; and children in households that often “could not afford enough to eat” had about 80% greater odds. (Saying “30% greater odds,” etc., means the odds were 1.30, 1.55, and 1.80 times those of the reference group, respectively — this describes a relative increase, not the absolute percentage of children with ADHD.)
The Take-Away:
The authors conclude that household food insecurity was associated with higher odds of parent‑reported clinician‑diagnosed ADHD in a dose‑response pattern. They suggest that reducing food insecurity (for example, ,by improving access to nutritious food and combining nutritional supports with mental‑health care) may help lower ADHD risk or reduce symptoms in some children. Reducing food insecurity should be a priority for society, but it is premature to conclude it will reduce the risk for ADHD. We know that parents with ADHD are more likely to lose their jobs and have lower incomes compared to parents with ADHD. That might create food insecurity for their children who we know are at high risk for ADHD from genetic studies.
Ankita Shukla, Joe Sundell, Divya Reddy Voladri, Vikas Chowdhary, and Anthony Goudie, “Association of Food Insecurity and ADHD in Children: Insights from the National Survey of Children’s Health,” Academic Pediatrics 26 (2026), 411, published online, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2026.103359.
A recently published meta-analysis compared the treatment of ADHD with multi-nutrient supplements versus placebo.
Children received either placebo or Daily Essential Nutrients(Vit A 384 IU, Vit C 40 mg, Vit D 200 IU, Vit E 24 IU, Vit K 8 μg, B1 4 mg, B21.2 mg, B3 6 mg, B6 4.67 mg, B9 50 μg, B12 60 μg, B7 72 μg, B5 2 mg, Ca 88 mg, Fe 0.92 mg, P 56 mg, I 13.6 μg, Mg 40 mg, Zn 3.2 mg, Se 13.6 μg, Cu 0.48 mg, Mn0.64 mg, Cr 41.6 μg, Mo 9.6 μg, P 16 mg. Proprietary blend: Choline bitartrate, Alpha-lipoic acid, Inositol, Acety-l-carnitine (as acetyl-L-carnitine hydrochloride), Grape seed extract, Ginkgo biloba leaf extract, Methionine (asL-methionine hydrochloride), Cysteine (as N-acetyl-L-cysteine), Germanium sesquioxide (as chelate), Boron, Vanadium, Lithium orotate, Nickel. Other ingredients: Cellulose glycine 45 mg, Citric acid 26.814 mg, Magnesium stearate24 mg, Silicon dioxide 20 mg).
Adults received either placebo or EMP+ (Vit A 5760IU, Vit C 600 mg, Vit D 1440 IU, Vit E 360 IU, B1 18 mg, B2 13.5 mg, B3 90 mg,B5 21.6 mg, B6 36 mg, B9 1440 μg, B12 900 μg, Biotin 1080 μg, Pantothenic acid21.6 mg, Ca 1320 mg, Fe 13.74 mg, P 840mg, I 204 μg, Mg 600 mg, Zn 48 mg, Se204 μg, Cu 7.2 mg, Mn 9.6 mg, Cr 624 μg, Mo 144 μg, K 240 mg, Germaniumsesquioxide 20.7 mg, B 2400 μg, V 1194 μg, Ni 29.4 μg, Choline bitartrate 540mg, DL-phenylalanine 360 mg, Citrus bioflavonoids 240 mg, Inositol 180 mg,Glutamine 180 mg, L-methionine 60 mg, Gingko biloba 36 mg, grape seed extract45 mg).
Using the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale for adults, and the Children's Global Assessment Scale (CGAS) for children, the study team reported moderate improvements in overall functioning from the use of the supplements. GAF and CGAF are used by mental health clinicians and physicians to rate subjectively the social, occupational, and psychological functioning of an individual.
Yet no significant improvements were found for either clinician-rated or observer-rated ADHD Change Scores.
Moreover, the positive finding was compromised by a series of methodological shortcomings:
· It was just barely a meta-analysis, involving only two studies.
· The combined number of participants in the two studies was small, 173, consisting of 93 children in one study and 80 adults in the other.
· Both studies had the same lead author, Julia J. Rucklidge, who was also a member of the meta-analysis team.
With only two studies, there was no way to evaluate publication bias.
The Background:
Many studies have tried to determine whether exercise improves executive function in children and adolescents with ADHD, but their conclusions have not always agreed. To bring the evidence together more clearly, the research team re-analyzed the available randomized controlled trials using a statistical approach designed to handle the kinds of data common in this field.
Executive functions are skills that help us control attention and behavior. The three core components are inhibitory control (the ability to stop or override impulses), working memory (holding and manipulating information in mind), and cognitive flexibility (switching between tasks or perspectives). Because a single study often reports multiple tests that tap these different skills, one study can contribute several related results (called effect sizes). Traditional meta-analysis typically treats each effect size as independent; when they are actually correlated, that can bias the combined estimate or force reviewers to discard useful data.
To avoid those problems, the team used a three-level meta-analysis. In this model, variance in the data is separated into three sources:
(1) sampling variance: the random error in each measured effect
(2) within-study variance: differences between multiple effect sizes reported in the same study
(3) between-study variance: differences in effects from one study to another
Accounting for all three levels makes it possible to include every eligible effect size from each study, which preserves information and statistical power and reduces the risk that correlations among effect sizes will overstate results.
The Study:
The review focused on long-term exercise interventions and also tested whether certain factors might change (or moderate) the effects. These potential moderators included participant age, which executive-function subcomponent was measured, the type of exercise, how long each session lasted, the total length of the intervention, and how often sessions occurred.
To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of children or adolescents aged 6–18 diagnosed with ADHD. RCTs randomly assign participants to an intervention or a comparison group and are considered a strong design for testing cause-and-effect. The exercise programs had to be structured and last at least six weeks. Comparison groups varied by study and could include usual care, medication, sedentary activities, health education, waiting lists, or everyday life without the specific exercise program. Fifteen studies including 658 participants met these criteria.
The Results:
The three-level meta-analysis showed that long-term exercise interventions were associated with moderate-to-strong improvements in overall executive function. When statistical outliers were removed, the result remained positive: 13 RCTs with 598 participants showed moderate improvements. In plain terms, this suggests improvements that are noticeable and meaningful on average, not just tiny changes that are unlikely to matter in daily life.
Those moderate gains appeared across all three executive-function domains (inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility, meaning the benefits were not limited to a single cognitive skill. The authors also examined exercise type:
“Open-skill” activities, which require reacting to changing situations (for example, many team sports, martial arts sparring, or racket sports), produced moderate-to-large improvements.
“Closed-skill” activities, which are more predictable and repetitive (for example, running or stationary cycling), showed only small, non-significant improvements in this analysis.
The review also found dose-related patterns. Interventions lasting at least twelve weeks were about three times more effective than interventions of six to twelve weeks, and sessions longer than an hour were about twice as effective as shorter sessions. Benefits were largest among adolescents aged 13 and older.
These patterns suggest that longer, more intensive programs, and those that involve open-skill activities, may produce larger gains. However, the authors caution that the overall certainty of the evidence was low. “Low certainty” means that limitations in the available studies (for example, small sample sizes, variability in methods, or possible bias) make it difficult to be confident that the observed effects will hold up exactly the same way in future research. Some subgroup findings (age, intervention duration, and others) were based on only a small number of effect sizes, so those moderator results should be treated as exploratory rather than definitive.
The Take-Away:
In short, this three-level meta-analysis suggests that regular, structured exercise (particularly longer programs and open-skill activities) may help improve executive functions in children and adolescents with ADHD. The evidence is promising but not yet strong enough to be considered conclusive, and the authors recommend more, larger randomized trials to confirm specifically which types and doses of exercise are most effective. Moreover, neither this meta-analysis or others show that exercise can replace standard treatments for reducing the core symptoms of ADHD (inattention, hyperactivity, impulsivity).
Noting that “Oxidative stress disrupts the structure and function of neurons in the prefrontal lobe of the brain,” and “Structural and functional impairments in the prefrontal cortex have been shown to be highly correlated with behavioral and emotional problems of ADHD,” a Chinese team at Dalian University set out to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of antioxidant therapy in children and adolescents with ADHD.
The team’s systematic search of the peer-reviewed medical literature identified a total of 48 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or prospective studies involving 12 antioxidant agents (resveratrol, pycnogenol, omega-3, omega-6, quercetin, phosphatidylserine, almond, vitamin D, zinc, folic acid, ginkgo biloba, Acetyl-L-carnitine) that met criteria for inclusion:
Treatment efficacy was measured through ADHD symptom scores using Conners’ parent rating scale (CPRS), Conners’ teacher rating scale (CTRS), ADHD rating scale-parent (ADHD RS-Parent), and ADHD rating scale-teacher (ADHD RS-Teacher), as well as secondary outcome indicators such as the Clinical Global Impressions scale (CGI) and Continuous Performance Test (CPT), relative to controls.
None of the antioxidant therapies were significantly better than placebo.
One limitation is that no effort was made to assess publication bias.
These results indicate that antioxidants should not be used for treating ADHD.
.png)
The Background:
Because impulsivity is a core feature of ADHD, researchers have suggested it may raise the likelihood that someone will use psychoactive substances (including alcohol) and go on to develop a substance use disorder (SUD). When ADHD and SUD occur together in adolescents, treating one disorder alone usually has little or no positive effect on the other; current guidance therefore recommends treating both conditions at the same time using evidence-based approaches for each.
Given how much ADHD can worsen outcomes for people with primary SUDs, it is important to identify ADHD in people who are being treated for substance problems.
The Study:
A recent systematic meta-review found that, by current official criteria, ADHD affects about 7.2% of children and adolescents and about 2.6% of adults (Chaulagain et al., 2023). When adult ADHD is defined without the requirement that symptoms began by age 11, roughly 6.8% of adults meet criteria. A large body of research links ADHD to higher rates of medical problems, poorer quality of life, greater risk of suicide, more accidental injuries, worse educational outcomes, and increased involvement with the criminal justice system.
The present study is the first meta-analysis to estimate how common clinically diagnosed ADHD is among adults (age 18+) who are in treatment for psychoactive substance use disorders, and to provide those estimates by sex and by the specific substance used.
The authors included only studies of adults treated for a SUD (including alcohol). Eighty-four studies met the criteria, representing more than 34,000 people. Across all studies, the pooled prevalence of clinically diagnosed ADHD was 22%.
To put that in context, 22% is about eight times higher than the 2.6% adult prevalence using the stricter official definition, and about three times higher than the 6.8% rate when the childhood-onset requirement is relaxed. By substance, the prevalence was similar for alcohol (24%) and opioids (22%), with no significant difference between males and females. Prevalence among people treated for cocaine use was somewhat lower overall (18%), driven largely by lower rates among women, for whom the rate was no higher than in the general population. Estimates were higher for people using benzodiazepines and cannabis, but those figures are based on a very small number of users (256 and 249 people, respectively) and are therefore less certain.
The Results:
The authors conclude: “These findings underscore the need for early identification and treatment of ADHD as most substance use disorders develop in adolescence and young adulthood. While in treatment for ADHD, appropriate screening and management of substance use is possible.”
The Background:
Stimulant medications (like methylphenidate and amphetamines) and non-stimulants (like atomoxetine and guanfacine) remain the first-line treatments for ADHD, but their long-term use is often constrained by parental concerns, side effects (reduced appetite, sleep disruption, cardiovascular effects), and the fact that roughly 30% of children respond only partially or not at all. These medications tend to help with attention and behavior, but they do less to address emotional regulation or broader physical health, leaving some parents to seek other safe, complementary treatments.
Nutritional approaches, including omega-3 fatty acids, are one such avenue. Oily fish is the natural source, but clinical trials typically rely on supplements instead, since they allow for precise dosing, avoid the heavy-metal exposure that can come with high fish intake, and sidestep the problem of inconsistent dietary habits. Two omega-3s stand out as particularly relevant: DHA, which supports brain structure and cell-to-cell communication, and EPA, which helps reduce brain inflammation and improve blood flow. Both influence the dopamine and serotonin systems implicated in ADHD.
The Study:
Previous meta-analyses have generally found only modest overall benefits with mixed results. This mixed-results pattern may reflect the fact that children who had low omega-3 levels to begin with stand to benefit more than those whose levels are already adequate. This meta-analysis set out to test that idea directly, asking whether a child's baseline omega-3 status predicts how well they respond to supplementation.
To be included, studies had to be randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving children diagnosed with ADHD who did not have major coexisting medical conditions. Trials that used broad multinutrient interventions, where the effect of omega-3s specifically couldn't be isolated, were excluded.
The resulting analysis of seven RCTs covering 654 children found small overall improvements in ADHD symptoms with omega-3 supplementation, consistent with earlier meta-analyses. There was little variation across studies, but a clear signal of publication bias, which the authors did not attempt to statistically correct for.
Among four RCTs involving 369 children with low baseline omega-3 levels, supplementation produced a moderate improvement in ADHD symptoms, with consistent results across studies. By contrast, the six RCTs covering 559 children with normal or high baseline omega-3 levels showed no improvement at all, again with consistent results across studies.
The Results:
The authors concluded: this systematic review and meta-analysis offers preliminary evidence that children’s response to long-chain omega-3 supplementation for ADHD may depend on their starting omega-3 nutritional status. Larger effects emerged in the subgroups defined by individual studies as having low baseline levels, while normal, high, or unstratified groups showed little evidence of benefit. In other words, there may be a benefit to children with ADHD taking omega-3 supplements, but only if they are already deficient.
Even still, a sensitivity analysis limited to ADHD symptom-rating scales found only a numerically higher effect in the low-baseline group. This means that these results, though positive, are not considered statistically significant.
The Take-Away:
Given that the evidence rests on just seven trials, that “low baseline” was defined differently across studies (using different biological markers and thresholds), and that several subgroup comparisons were not planned in advance, the authors caution that these findings should be treated as hypothesis-generating rather than conclusive.
The Background:
Previous research has suggested that people with ADHD have higher rates of death than those without the condition. Until now, many of those studies lacked the detail needed to untangle why this might be the case. A recent meta-analysis of eight separate studies reported that ADHD roughly doubled the risk of death, and it hinted that factors like socioeconomic status and other mental illnesses might help explain the link.
The Study:
To explore this in more detail, researchers used the US National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative prospective cohort of just over 52,000 adults. Survey records were linked with the National Death Index, and participants were followed from the date of interview until death or December 31, 2019, whichever came first. The main outcome was death from any cause. With a median follow-up of just under eight years, there were 6,024 deaths recorded.
When the team adjusted their analysis for age, sex, ethnicity, and the year of the survey, having ADHD was associated with a 58% higher risk of death. Controlling further for family income and educational level reduced that increased risk slightly, to 50%.
Controlling for health conditions (like high blood pressure, diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and cancer) and lifestyle factors (smoking, alcohol use, physical activity, and body weight) also reduced the association to about 46%.
By contrast, when the researchers adjusted for two psychiatric conditions (anxiety and depression) commonly found alongside ADHD, the link between ADHD and higher mortality disappeared statistically. In other words, once anxiety and depression were taken into account, ADHD itself was no longer associated with a clearly measurable increase in the risk of death.
What Does This Mean?
The authors conclude that the apparent effect of ADHD on mortality seems to operate largely through accompanying mental illness, and to a lesser extent through lifestyle and physical health problems. They suggest that treating and managing these co-occurring issues (through medications, therapy, and behavioral interventions) might help reduce the risk of premature death in people with ADHD, although they note that further evidence is needed.
_logo%201.svg)
