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.
March 7, 2025
The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted annually by the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The NHIS is done primarily through face-to-face computer-assisted interviews in the homes of respondents. But telephone interviews are substituted on request, or where travel distances make in-home visits impractical.
For each interviewed family, only one sample child is randomly selected by a computer program.
The total number of households with a child or adolescent aged 3-17 for the years 2018 through 2021 was 26,422.
Based on responses from family members, 9.5% of the children and adolescents randomly surveyed throughout the United States had ADHD.
This proportion varied significantly based on age, rising from 1.5% for ages 3-5 to 9.6% for ages 6-11 and to 13.4% for ages 12-17.
There was an almost two-to-one gap between the 12.4% prevalence among males and the 6.6% prevalence among females.
There was significant variation by race/ethnicity. While rates among non-Hispanic whites (11.1%) and non-Hispanic blacks (10.5%) did not differ significantly, these two groups differed significantly from Hispanics (7.2%) and Others (6.6%).
There were no significant variations in ADHD prevalence based on highest education level of family members.
But family income had a significant relationship with ADHD prevalence, especially at lower incomes. For family incomes under the poverty line, the prevalence was 12.7%. That dropped to 10.3% for family incomes above the poverty level but less than twice that level. For all others it dropped further to about 8.5%. Although that might seem like poverty causes ADHD, we cannot draw that conclusion. Other data indicate that adults with ADHD have lower incomes. That would lead to more ADHD in kids from lower income families.
There was also significant geographic variation in reported prevalence rates. It was highest in the South, at 11.3%, then the Midwest at 10%, the Northeast at 9.1%, with a jump down to 6.9% in the West.
Overall ADHD prevalence did not vary significantly by year over the four years covered by this study.
This study highlights a consistently high prevalence of developmental disabilities among U.S. children and adolescents, with notable increases in other developmental delays and co-occurring learning and intellectual disabilities from 2018 to 2021. While the overall prevalence remained stable, these findings emphasize the need for continued research into potential risk factors and targeted interventions to address developmental challenges in youth.
It is also important to note that this study assessed the prevalence of ADHD being diagnosed by healthcare professionals. Due to variations in healthcare accessibility across the country, the true prevalence of ADHD may differ still.
...
Qian Li, Yanmei Li, Juan Zheng, Xiaofang Yan, Jitian Huang, Yingxia Xu, Xia Zeng, Tianran Shen, Xiaohui Xing, Qingsong Chen, and Wenhan Yang, “Prevalence and trends of developmental disabilities among US children and adolescents aged 3 to 17 years, 2018–2021,” Scientific Reports (2023) 13: 17254, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44472-1.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that is typically diagnosed in childhood but can persist into adulthood. Its symptoms include inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, and it can significantly affect daily life, academic achievement, and professional success. As scientific understanding of the condition continues to evolve, new research is revealing more insights into the prevalence, comorbidity, treatment, and physiological aspects of ADHD in adults. Here's a roundup of some recent findings:
A recent study assessing the prevalence of treatment for ADHD among US college students found that the location of mental health care significantly affects treatment outcomes. Specifically, students receiving mental healthcare on campus were less likely to receive any medication or therapy for ADHD, suggesting the need to evaluate the quality of mental health services available on college campuses and their effectiveness in treating ADHD.
Another study found a correlation between ADHD and the l-Arginine/Nitric oxide (Arg/NO) pathway, a physiological process linked to dopamine release and cardiovascular functioning. The study found that adults with ADHD who were not treated with methylphenidate (a common ADHD medication) showed variations in the Arg/NO pathway. This could have implications for monitoring potential cardiovascular side effects of ADHD medications, as well as for understanding the biochemical changes that occur in ADHD.
ADHD and chronic pain appear to be related, according to a comparative study of clinical and general population samples. Particularly in females with ADHD, the prevalence of chronic and multisite pain was found to be high. This calls for longitudinal studies to understand the complex sex differences of comorbid chronic pain and ADHD in adolescents and the potential impacts of stimulant use on pain.
Finally, a study investigated the comorbidity of ADHD and bipolar disorder (BD) and its potential link to violent behavior. The research revealed a positive effect of ADHD symptoms on violence tendency and aggression scores. Moreover, male gender and young age were also found to have significant positive effects on violence and aggression scores, suggesting an association between these disorders and violent behavior.
Using Statistics New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), a large database of linked de-identified administrative and survey data about people and households, a local study team examined a three-year birth cohort (mid-1992 through mid-1995) totaling 149,076 persons.
The team assessed the presence of ADHD within this cohort through diagnosis codes and inference from medication dispensing, where there was at least one code relating to an ADHD diagnosis in the medication datasets. This subgroup consisted of 3,975 persons.
Next, they related this information to criminal justice system interactions of increasing severity, starting with police proceedings, and continuing with court charges, court convictions, and incarcerations. These interactions were tracked during an eight-year period from participants’ 17th birthday through their 25th birthday.
In this same period the team also tracked types of offenses: against people; against property; against organizations, government, and community; and violent offenses.
In all cases, the study team adjusted for gender, ethnicity, deprivation, and area of residence as potential confounders.
With these adjustments, young adults with ADHD were over twice as likely as their typically developing peers to be proceeded against by police, to be charged with an offense, and to be convicted. They were almost five times as likely to be incarcerated.
With the same adjustments, young adults with ADHD were over twice as likely as their typically developing peers to be convicted of offenses against organizations, government, and community. They were almost three times as likely to be convicted of crimes against persons, and over three and a half times more likely to be convicted of either violent offenses or offenses against property.
The authors noted, “The greater effect size for incarceration observed in our study may be due to the lack of control for comorbid conditions such as CD [conduct disorder], which are known criminogenic risk factors.”
They also noted, “The sharp increase in the risk of incarceration observed may also signal differences in the NZ justice system’s approach to ADHD, which may be less responsive to the condition than other nations, particularly the steps in the justice system between conviction and sentence. This would suggest that the UNCRPD [United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] obligations of equal recognition before the law and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability are not being met for individuals with ADHD in NZ.”
They concluded, “Our findings revealed that not only were individuals with ADHD overrepresented at all stages of the CJS [criminal justice system] and offense types examined, there was also a pattern of increasing risk for CJS interactions as these individuals moved through the system. These results highlight the importance of early identification and responsivity to ADHD within the CJS and suggest that the NZ justice system may require changes to both of these areas to ensure that young individuals with ADHD receive equitable access to, and treatment within, the CJS.”
An international team of researchers conducted a comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed literature to perform a meta-analysis, with three aims:
1) assess the global prevalence of adult ADHD
2) explore possible associated factors
3) estimate the 2020 global population of persons with adult ADHD.
In doing so, they distinguished between studies requiring childhood-onset of ADHD to validate adult ADHD (persistent adult ADHD) and studies that make no such requirement and examine ADHD symptoms in adults regardless of previous childhood diagnosis (symptomatic adult ADHD).
The search yielded forty articles covering thirty countries. Twenty reported prevalence data on symptomatic adult ADHD, 19 on persistent adult ADHD, and one on both. Thirty-five studies were published in the last decade (2010-2019). Thirty-one included both urban and rural populations. Thirty-five had a quality score of six or above (out of ten). Twenty-five had sample sizes greater than a thousand.
Because the prevalence of ADHD is age-dependent, and different countries vary widely in the age structure of their populations, the authors adjusted country results for their structures. This allowed for meaningful global estimates of the prevalence of adult ADHD.
Twenty studies covering a total of 107,282 participants reported the prevalence of persistent adult ADHD. The pooled prevalence was 4.6%. After adjustment for the global population structure, the pooled prevalence was 2.6%, equivalent to roughly 140 million cases globally.
Twenty-one studies covering 50,098 participants reported on the prevalence of symptomatic adult ADHD. The pooled prevalence was 8.8%. After adjustment for the global population structure, the pooled prevalence was 6.7%, equivalent to roughly 366 million cases globally.
For persistent adult ADHD, adjusted prevalence declined steeply from 5% among 18- to 24-year-olds to 0.8% among those 60 and older.
For symptomatic adult ADHD, adjusted prevalence declined less steeply from 9% among 18- to 24-year-olds to 4.5% among that 60 and older.
In each case, subgroup analyses found no significant differences based on sex, urban or rural setting, diagnostic tool, DSM version, or investigation period, although pooled prevalence estimates of persistent adult ADHD from 2010 onward were almost twice the previous pooled prevalence estimates. For symptomatic adult ADHD, however, differences between WHO (World Health Organization) regions were highly significant, although the outliers(Southeast Asia at 25% and Eastern Mediterranean at 16%) were based on small samples(304 and 748 respectively).
In both cases, between-study heterogeneity was very high (over 97%). The authors noted, "the age of interviewed participants in the included studies was not unified, ranging from young adults to the elderly. Given the fact that the prevalence of adult ADHD decreases with advancing age, as revealed in previous investigations and our meta-regression, it is not surprising to observe such a diversity in the reported prevalence, and the considerable heterogeneity across included studies could not be fully ruled out by a priori selected variables, including diagnostic tool, DSM version, sex, setting, investigation period, WHO region, and WB [World Bank] region. The effects of other potential correlates of adult ADHD, such as ethnicity, were not able to be addressed due to the lack of sufficient information."
In both cases, there was also evidence of publication bias. The authors stated, "we did not try to eliminate publication bias in our analyses, because we deemed that an observed prevalence of adult ADHD that substantially differed from previous estimates was likely to have been published."
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)
