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 23, 2025
The United Kingdom has a National Health Service (NHS) that encompasses virtually its entire population, with free access. The NHS records facilitate conducting nationwide studies.
The Study
Using electronic health records from 794 primary care practices (roughly one in ten UK practices), largely representative of the UK population, a research team used mortality data to explore the life expectancy of adults diagnosed with ADHD compared with adults not diagnosed with ADHD.
For each adult diagnosed with ADHD, the team sampled ten controls matched by age, sex, and primary care practice. They identified 30,039 individuals with an ADHD diagnosis in their electronic health records and matched them with 300,390 without an ADHD diagnosis.
The team also gathered data on socioeconomic deprivation, diabetes, elevated cholesterol, hardening of the coronary arteries, high blood pressure, chronic respiratory disease, epilepsy, anxiety, depression, severe mental illness, self-harm/suicide, autism, intellectual disability, personality disorder, current smoking, and potentially harmful alcohol use. All these conditions examined at baseline were more common among participants with ADHD than comparison participants.
Both men and women with ADHD were about twice as likely to die during follow-up as Those without ADHD. A diagnosis of ADHD was associated with a 6.8-year reduction of life expectancy in males and an 8.6-year reduction of life expectancy in females.
Conclusion
The authors wrote, “We believe that this is unlikely to be because of ADHD itself and likely caused by modifiable factors such as smoking, unmet mental and physical health support, and unmet treatment needs. The findings illustrate an important inequity that demands urgent attention.”
They also noted, “…we did not adjust for socioeconomic status (SES), as we believe that SES is best understood as part of the causal pathway between ADHD and premature mortality (i.e. SES is a mediator).” These results confirm other studies which also document that those with ADHD have a decreased life expectancy, primarily due to accidents and suicide.
Elizabeth O’Nions, Céline El Baou, Amber John, Dan Lewer, Will Mandy, Douglas G.J. McKechnie, Irene Petersen, and Josh Stott, “Life expectancy and years of life lost for adults with diagnosed ADHD in the UK: matched cohort study,” The British Journal of Psychiatry (2025), https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2024.199.
Researchers from the Swedish Department of Global Public Health, the Swedish Transport Agency, and the Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute collaborated in a nationwide population study of motor vehicle crashes among the elderly, defined as 65 and older.
They availed themselves of the country's all-encompassing national registers to identify the anonymized records of all such drivers from 2011 through 2016. That enabled them to compare crash records of those with known driving-impairing conditions with matched drivers who had no record of such conditions.
They looked only at road traffic crashes that resulted in injury to the driver or a passenger. For anyone with multiple crash records, they only looked at the first.
This was a case-control study, with two controls matched to each case wherever possible. For every case of a 65 or older driver involved in an injurious crash, the team randomly matched two individual controls by sex, birth year, municipality of residence, and other medical conditions. Place of residence was used to distinguish residents of large cities, who would tend to drive less frequently and in denser traffic, from those in small towns and rural areas. To minimize controls that never drive, only those with a driver's license and car were considered.
Of the thirteen medical conditions examined, elderly drivers with "ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, and similar conditions" had by far the highest odds of being in crashes that resulted in injury "at almost three times the rate of those without those conditions."
But note carefully the serious limitations in the data:
Taiwan has a single-payer healthcare system that covers virtually every inhabitant (99.5%). That makes it relatively easy to track healthcare issues using its comprehensive National Health Insurance Research Database.
This database maintains a subset, the Longitudinal Health Insurance Database (LHID), consisting of a million persons, with no significant differences in sex, age, or healthcare use from the parent database.
A Taiwanese research team used the LHID to identify 114,486 individuals diagnosed with ADHD from 1997 to 2013. It then compared their motor vehicle (including motorcycles, which are extremely common in Taiwan) crash patterns with 338,261 normally developing controls from the same database.
Adjusting for sex, age, and psychiatric comorbidities, persons with ADHD were about a fifth (19%)more likely to be in traffic crashes. Breaking it down further by sex, women with ADHD were no more likely to be in crashes, but men with ADHD were about a quarter (24%) more likely than their healthy counterparts.
Since the database also tracks pharmaceutical prescriptions, the team also looked into the effect of methylphenidate (MPH), the medication that is the first-line treatment for ADHD under Taiwanese guidelines, and the only approved stimulant. Atomoxetine, a non-stimulant, is used where MPH is either ineffective or not indicated for any other reason and is only used in 4% of all cases.
Of the 114,486 persons diagnosed with ADHD, 89,826 used MPH, and 24,660 did not.
Compared with persons with ADHD who were not on methylphenidate, those with ADHD who were on MPH for 180 days (roughly half a year) or less had 77% fewer accidents, and those on MPH for over 180 days had 93% fewer accidents. This strong dose-response relationship is suggestive of a causal relationship, with MPH perhaps reducing impulsive behavior, particularly among young men with ADHD.
The team also conducted within-person analyses, comparing times when persons with ADHD were taking MPH with periods when they were not. These showed no effect within 30 days of use, rising to a 65%reduction in crashes within 60 to 90 days of use, which was barely outside the 95% confidence interval (p = .07), very likely because of "the extremely low incidence of transport accidence (i.e. 0.6%)enlarged the confidence interval."
The authors concluded, "All registration medical claim data came from the nationally-representative sample of NHI, minimizing the selection and recall bias. By excluding transport accidents before ADHD diagnosis, we have precluded the reverse association between ADHD and road traffic accidents as much as possible. The advantage of the between-subjects comparison was that we were able to examine the MPH effect in different dose groups. However, confounding by indication cannot be eliminated. For example, those with a severe degree of ADHD symptoms, an exhibition of risky behaviors, or comorbid with other psychiatric illnesses were more likely to be prescribed medication. Hence, we also performed within-subject comparisons to adjust for time-invariant factors."
Transport safety thus offers another compelling reason to treat ADHD symptoms. Methylphenidate in particular seems to be especially effective in reducing traffic fatalities and injuries.
Suicide is one of the most feared outcomes of any psychiatric condition. Although its association with depression is well known, a small but growing research literature shows that ADHD is also a risk factor for suicidality. Suicide is difficult to study. Because it is relatively rare, large samples of patients are needed to make definitive statements.
Studies of suicide and ADHD must also consider the possibility that medications might elevate that risk. For example, the FDA placed a black box warning on atomoxetine because that ADHD medication had been shown to increase suicidal risk in youth. A recent study of 37,936 patients with ADHD now provides much insight into these issues (Chen, Q., Sjolander, A., Runeson, B., D'Onofrio, B. M., Lichtenstein, P. & Larsson, H. (2014). Drug treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and suicidal behavior: a register-based study. BMJ 348, g3769.). In Sweden, such large studies are possible because researchers have computerized medical registers that describe the disorders and treatments of all people in Sweden. Among 37,936 patients with ADHD, 7019 suicide attempts or completed suicides occurred during 150,721 person-years of follow-up. This indicates that, in any given year, the risk for a suicidal event is about 5%. For ADHD patients, the risk for a suicide event is about 30% greater than for non-ADHD patients. Among the ADHD patients who attempted or completed suicide, the risk was increased for those who had also been diagnosed with a mood disorder, conduct disorder, substance abuse, or borderline personality. This is not surprising; the most serious and complicated cases of ADHD are those that have the greatest risk for suicidal events. The effects of the medication were less clear. The risk for suicide events was greater for ADHD patients who had been treated with non-stimulant medication compared with those who had not been treated with non-stimulant medication. A similar comparison showed no effect of stimulant medications. This first analysis suffers from the fact that the probability of receiving medication increases with the severity of the disorder. To address this problem, the researchers limited the analyses to ADHD patients who had some medication treatment and then compared suicidal risk between periods of medication treatment and periods of no medication treatment. This analysis found no increased risk for suicide from non-stimulant medications and, more importantly, found that for patients treated with stimulants, the risk for suicide was lower when they were taking stimulant medications. This protective effect of stimulant medication provides further evidence of the long-term effects of stimulant medications, which have also been shown to lower the risks for traffic accidents, criminality, smoking, and other substance use disorders.
Background:
ADHD treatment includes medication, behavioral therapy, dietary changes, and special education. Stimulants are usually the first choice but may cause side effects like appetite loss and stomach discomfort, leading some to stop using them. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is effective but not always sufficient on its own. Research is increasingly exploring non-drug options, such as transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), which may boost medication effectiveness and improve results.
What is tDCS?
tDCS delivers a weak electric current (1.0–2.0 mA) via scalp electrodes to modulate brain activity, with current flowing from anode to cathode. Anodal stimulation increases neuronal activity, while cathodal stimulation generally inhibits it, though effects vary by region and neural circuitry. The impact of tDCS depends on factors such as current intensity, duration, and electrode shape. It targets cortical areas, often stimulating the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex for ADHD due to its role in cognitive control. Stimulation of the inferior frontal gyrus has also been shown to improve response inhibition, making it another target for ADHD therapy.
There is an ongoing debate about how effective tDCS is for individuals with ADHD. One study found that applying tDCS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex can help reduce impulsivity symptoms in ADHD, whereas another study reported that several sessions of anodic tDCS did not lead to improvements in ADHD symptoms or cognitive abilities.
New Research:
Two recent meta-analyses have searched for a resolution to these conflicting findings. Both included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using either sham stimulation or a waitlist for controls.
Each team included seven studies in their respective meta-analyses, three of which appeared in both.
Both Wang et al. (three RCTs totaling 97 participants) and Wen et al. (three RCTs combining 121 participants) reported very large effect size reductions in inattention symptoms from tDCS versus controls. There was only one RCT overlap between them. Wang et al. had moderate to high variation (heterogeneity) in individual study outcomes, whereas Wen et al. had virtually none. There was no indication of publication bias.
Whereas Wen et al.’s same three RCTs found no significant reduction in hyperactivity/impulsivity symptoms, Wang et al. combined five RCTs with 221 total participants and reported a medium effect size reduction in impulsivity symptoms. This time, there was an overlap of two RCTs between the studies. Wen et al. had no heterogeneity, while Wang et al. had moderate heterogeneity. Neither showed signs of publication bias.
Turning to performance-based tasks, Wang et al. reported a medium effect size improvement in attentional performance from tDCS over controls (three RCTs totaling 136 participants), but no improvement in inhibitory control (five RCTs combining 234 persons).
Wang et al. found no significant difference in adverse events (four RCTs combining 161 participants) between tDCS and controls, with no heterogeneity. Wen et al. found no significant difference in dropout rates (4 RCTs totaling 143 individuals), again with no heterogeneity.
Wang et al. concluded, “tDCS may improve impulsive symptoms and inattentive symptoms among ADHD patients without increasing adverse effects, which is critical for clinical practice, especially when considering noninvasive brain stimulation, where patient safety is a key concern.”
Wen et al. further concluded, “Our study supported the use of tDCS for improving the self-reported symptoms of inattention and objective attentional performance in adults diagnosed with ADHD. However, the limited number of available trials hindered a robust investigation into the parameters required for establishing a standard protocol, such as the optimal location of electrode placement and treatment frequency in this setting. Further large-scale double-blind sham-controlled clinical trials that include assessments of self-reported symptoms and performance-based tasks both immediately after interventions and during follow-up periods, as well as comparisons of the efficacy of tDCS targeting different brain locations, are warranted to address these issues.”
The Take-Away:
Previous studies have shown mixed results on the benefits of this therapy on ADHD. These new findings suggest that tDCS may hold some real promise for adults with ADHD. While the technique didn’t meaningfully shift hyperactivity or impulsivity, it was well-tolerated and showed benefit, especially in self-reported symptoms. However, with only a handful of trials to draw from, it would be a mistake to suggest tDCS as a standard treatment protocol. Larger, well-designed studies are the next essential step to clarify where, how, and how often tDCS works best.
Background:
The development of ADHD is strongly associated with functional impairments in the prefrontal cortex, particularly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, which plays a key role in maintaining attention and controlling impulses. Moreover, imbalances in neurotransmitters like dopamine and norepinephrine are widely regarded as major neurobiological factors contributing to ADHD.
Executive functions are a group of higher-order cognitive skills that guide thoughts and actions toward goals. “Executive function” refers to three main components: inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility. Inhibitory control helps curb impulsive actions to stay on track. Working memory allows temporary storage and manipulation of information for complex tasks. Cognitive flexibility enables switching attention and strategies in varied or demanding situations.
Research shows that about 89% of children with ADHD have specific executive function impairments. These difficulties in attention, self-control, and working memory often result in academic and social issues. Without timely intervention, these issues can lead to emotional disorders like depression, anxiety, and irritability, further affecting both physical health and social development.
Currently, primary treatments for executive function deficits in school-aged children with ADHD include medication and behavioral or psychological therapies, such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). While stimulant medications do improve executive function, not all patients are able to tolerate these medications. Behavioral interventions like neurofeedback provide customized care but show variable effectiveness and require specialized resources, making them hard to sustain. Safer, more practical, and long-lasting treatment options are urgently needed.
Exercise interventions are increasingly recognized as a safe, effective way to improve executive function in children with ADHD. However, systematic studies on school-aged children remain limited.
Moreover, there are two main scoring methods for assessing executive function: positive scoring (higher values mean better performance, such as accuracy) and reverse scoring (lower values mean better performance, such as reaction time). These different methods can affect how results are interpreted and compared across studies. This meta-analysis explored how different measurement and scoring methods might influence results, addressing important gaps in the research.
The Study:
Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving school-aged children (6–13 years old) diagnosed with ADHD by DSM-IV, DSM-5, ICD-10, ICD-11, or the SNAP-IV scale were included. Studies were excluded if the experimental group received non-exercise interventions or exercise combined with other interventions.
Cognitive Flexibility
Using positive scoring, exercise interventions were associated with a narrowly non-significant small effect size improvement relative to controls (eight RCTs, 268 children). Using reverse scoring, however, they were associated with a medium effect size improvement (eleven RCTs, 452 children). Variation (heterogeneity) in individual RCT outcomes was moderate, with no sign of publication bias in both instances.
Inhibitory Control
Using positive scoring, exercise interventions were associated with a medium effect size improvement relative to controls (ten RCTs, 421 children). Using reverse scoring, there was an association with a medium effect size improvement (eight RCTs, 265 children). Heterogeneity was moderate with no sign of publication bias in either case.
Working Memory
Using positive scoring, exercise interventions were associated with a medium effect size improvement relative to controls (six RCTs, 321 children). Using reverse scoring, the exercise was associated with a medium effect size improvement (five RCTs, 143 children). Heterogeneity was low with no indication of publication bias in both instances.
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “Exercise interventions can effectively improve inhibitory control and working memory in school-aged children with ADHD, regardless of whether positive or reverse scoring methods are applied. However, the effects of exercise on cognitive flexibility appear to be limited, with significant improvements observed only under reverse scoring. Moreover, the effects of exercise interventions on inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility vary across different measurement paradigms and scoring methods, indicating the importance of considering these methodological differences when interpreting results.”
Although this work is intriguing, it does not show that exercise significantly improves the symptoms of ADHD in children. This means that exercise, although beneficial for many reasons, should not be viewed as a replacement for evidence-based treatments for the disorder.
A recent Wall Street Journal article raised alarms by concluding that many children who start medication for ADHD will later end up on several psychiatric drugs. It’s an emotional topic that will make many parents, teachers, and even doctors worry: “Are we putting kids on a conveyor belt of medications?”
The article seeks to shine a light on the use of more than one psychiatric medication for children with ADHD. My biggest worry about the article is that it presents itself as a scientific study because they analyzed a database. It is not a scientific study. It is a journalistic investigation that does not meet the standards of a scientific report..
The WJS brings attention to several issues that parents and prescribers should think about. It documents that some kids with ADHD are on more than one psychiatric medication, and some are receiving drugs like antipsychotics, which have serious side effects. Is that appropriate? Access to good therapy, careful evaluation, and follow-up care can be lacking, especially for low-income families. Can that be improved? On that level, the article is doing something valuable: it’s shining a spotlight on potential problems.
It is, of course, fine for a journalist to raise questions, but it is not OK for them to pretend that they’ve done a scientific investigation that proves anything. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
Journalism vs. Science: Why Peer Review Matters
Journalists can get big datasets, hire data journalists, and present numbers that look scientific. But consider the differences between Journalism and Science. These types of articles are usually checked by editors and fact-checkers. Their main goals are:
Is this fact basically correct?
Are we being fair?
Are we avoiding legal problems?
But editors are not qualified to evaluate scientific data analysis methods. Scientific reports are evaluated by experts who are not part of the project. They ask tough questions like:
Exactly how did you define ADHD?
How did you handle missing data?
Did you address confounding?
Did you confuse correlation with causation?
If the authors of the study cannot address these and other technical issues, the paper is rejected.
The WSJ article has the veneer of science but lacks its methodology.
Correlation vs. Causation: A Classic Trap
The article’s storyline goes something like this: A kid starts ADHD medication. She has additional problems or side effects caused by the ADHD medications. Because of that, the prescriber adds more drugs. That leads to the patient being put on several drugs. Although it is true that some ADHD youth are on multiple drugs, the WSJ is wrong to conclude that the medications for ADHD cause this to occur. That simply confuses correlation with causation, which only the most naïve scientist would do.
In science, this problem is called confounding. It means other factors (like how severe or complex a child’s condition is) explain the results, not just the thing we’re focused on (medication for ADHD).
The WSJ analyzed a database of prescriptions. They did not survey the prescribers who made the prescriptions of the patients who received them. So they cannot conclude that ADHD medication caused the later prescriptions, or that the later medications were unnecessary or inappropriate.
Other explanations are very likely. It has been well documented that youth with ADHD are at high risk for developing other disorders such as anxiety, depression, and substance use. The kids in the WSJ database might have developed these disorders and needed several medications. A peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal would be expected to adjust for other diagnoses. If that is not possible, as it is in the case of the WSJ’s database, a journal would not allow the author to make strong conclusions about cause-and-effect.
Powerful Stories Don’t Always Mean Typical Stories
The article includes emotional accounts of children who seemed harmed by being put on multiple psychiatric drugs. Strong, emotional stories can make rare events feel common. They also frighten parents and patients, which might lead some to decline appropriate care.
These stories matter. They remind us that each data point is a real person. But these stories are the weakest form of data. They can raise important questions and lead scientists to design definitive studies, but we cannot use them to draw conclusions about the experiences of other patients. These stories serve as a warning about the importance of finding a qualified provider, not as against the use of multiple medications. That decision should be made by the parent or adult patient based on an informed discussion with the prescriber.
Many children and adults with ADHD benefit from multiple medications. The WSJ does not tell those stories, which creates an unbalanced and misleading presentation.
Newspapers frequently publish stories that send the message: “Beware! Doctors are practicing medicine in a way that will harm you and your family.” They then use case studies to prove their point. The title of the article is, itself, emotional clickbait designed to get more readers and advertising revenue. Don’t be confused by such journalistic trickery.
What Should We Conclude?
Here’s a balanced way to read the article. It is true that some patients are prescribed more than one medication for mental health problems. But the article does not tell us whether this prescribing practice is or is not warranted for most patients. I agree that the use of antipsychotic medications needs careful justification and close monitoring. I also agree that patients on multiple medications should be monitored closely to see if some of the medications can be eliminated. Many prescribers do exactly that, but the WSJ did not tell their stories.
It is not appropriate to conclude that ADHD medications typically cause combined pharmacotherapy or to suggest that combined pharmacotherapy is usually bad. The data presented by the WSJ does not adequately address these concerns. It does not prove that medications for ADHD cause dangerous medication cascades.
We have to remember that even when a journalist analyzes data, that is not the same as a peer-reviewed scientific study. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
_logo%201.svg)
