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."
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.
ADHD is commonly treated with medication, but these treatments frequently cause side effects such as reduced appetite and disrupted sleep. Psychological and behavioral therapies exist as alternatives, but they tend to be expensive, hard to scale, and generally do little to address the motor difficulties that many children with ADHD experience — things like clumsy movement, poor handwriting, or difficulty with coordination.
Physical exercise has attracted attention as a more accessible option. But research findings have been mixed, partly because studies vary so widely in how exercise is delivered and what outcomes they measure. This meta-analysis, drawing on 21 studies involving 850 children and adolescents aged 5–20 with a clinical ADHD diagnosis, tries to cut through that noise.
Two types of motor skills
The researchers separated motor skills into two broad categories:
The Data:
Gross motor skills (16 studies, 613 participants)
Overall, exercise produced medium-to-large improvements in gross motor skills. The strongest gains were in:
No significant gains were found in balance or flexibility.
Fine motor skills (13 studies, 553 participants):
Exercise also produced medium-to-large improvements in fine motor skills, specifically:
The Results: What Kind of Exercise Works Best?
Two factors stood out consistently across both gross and fine motor skills: session length and frequency.
The type of exercise mattered; structured programs with clear motor-skill components (rather than unstructured physical activity) yielded stronger results.
These results are not without caveats, however. The authors urge caution in interpreting these findings. A few key limitations include:
The Bottom Line
This meta-analysis provides tentative moderate evidence that structured physical exercise can meaningfully support motor skill development in children and adolescents with ADHD — particularly when sessions run longer than 45 minutes and occur at least three times a week. The benefits appear most robust for object control, locomotion, handwriting, and manual dexterity.
That said, the evidence base still has real gaps. The authors call for better-designed, fully randomized controlled trials with consistent methods, standardized ways of measuring exercise intensity, and greater inclusion of children and adolescents who are not on medication — all of which would help clarify when, how, and for whom exercise works best.
Treatment guidelines for childhood ADHD recommend medications as the first-line treatment for most youth with ADHD. Still, concerns about side effects and long-term outcomes have increased interest in non-pharmacological approaches. Researchers at Saudi Arabian Armed Forces hospitals recently conducted a network meta-analysis comparing several interventions, including mindfulness-based therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral parent training, neurofeedback, yoga, virtual reality programs, and digital working memory training.
Although the authors aimed to “provide a rigorous methodological approach to combine evidence from multiple treatment comparisons,” the study illustrates several pitfalls that arise when network meta-analysis is applied to a thin and heterogeneous evidence base.
What Network Meta-analysis Can and Cannot Do:
Network meta-analysis extends conventional meta-analysis by combining:
When the evidence network is large and well-connected, this approach can provide useful estimates of comparative effectiveness among many treatments.
This method is not always best, however, as many networks are sparse. This is especially true in areas such as complementary or behavioral therapies. In sparse networks, estimates rely heavily on indirect comparisons, and single studies can exert disproportionate influence over the results.
Conventional meta-analysis focuses on heterogeneity, meaning differences in results across studies within the same comparison.
Network meta-analysis must additionally evaluate consistency, whether the direct and indirect evidence agree.
However, when comparisons are supported by only one or two studies and the network is weakly connected, statistical tests for heterogeneity and consistency have very little power. In practice, this means the analysis often cannot detect problems even if they are present.
Sparse networks also make publication bias difficult to evaluate. This concern is particularly relevant in fields dominated by small trials and emerging therapies.
Why Such Treatment Rankings Are Appealing, but Potentially Problematic:
Many network meta-analyses summarize results using SUCRA, which estimates the probability that each treatment ranks best.
SUCRA, or Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking, is a key statistical metric in network meta-analyses. It is used to rank treatments by efficacy or safety. This is achieved by summarizing the probabilities of a treatment's rank into a single percentage, where a higher SUCRA value indicates a superior treatment. Ultimately, SUCRA helps pinpoint the most effective intervention among the ones compared.
Again, in well-supported networks, SUCRA can provide a useful summary of comparative effectiveness. But in sparse networks, rankings can create an illusion of precision, because treatments supported by a single small study may appear highly ranked simply due to random variation.
What Did this New Network Meta-analysis Study?
The study includes 16 trials with a total of 806 participants. But the structure of the evidence network is far weaker than this headline number suggests.
Based on the underlying studies:
This produces a very thin network, in which several interventions rely entirely on single studies.
Another challenge is that the included trials measure different outcomes. Some evaluate ADHD symptom severity, while others measure parental stress.
When studies use different outcome scales, meta-analysis typically relies on standardized measures such as the standardized mean difference to allow comparisons across studies. However, the analysis reports only mean-average differences, making it difficult to interpret the relative effect sizes.
Study Issues (including Limited Evidence and Risk of Bias):
The intervention supported by the largest number of studies (family mindfulness-based therapy) was one of the two approaches reported as producing statistically significant results. The other was BrainFit, which is supported by only a single previous trial.
Despite this limited evidence base, the study ranks interventions using SUCRA:
Notably, none of the runner-up interventions demonstrated statistically significant efficacy.
The authors acknowledge methodological limitations in the included studies:
“Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) exhibited notable concerns, as blinding for active treatment was not applicable in most studies.”
Such limitations are common in behavioral intervention trials, but they further increase uncertainty in already small evidence networks.
Conclusions:
The study ultimately concludes:
“This network meta-analysis supports MBT and BPT as effective non-pharmacological treatments for ADHD.”
However, the evidence underlying these claims is limited. Some analyses rely on very small numbers of studies and participants, and the network structure depends heavily on indirect comparisons.
Network meta-analysis can be a powerful tool when applied to a large, consistent, and well-connected body of evidence. When the evidence base is sparse, however, the resulting rankings and comparisons may appear statistically sophisticated while resting on a fragile evidentiary foundation.
_logo%201.svg)
