Article

Prevalence, Recognition, and Treatment of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder in a National Sample of US Children

Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA.
Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine (Impact Factor: 4.25). 10/2007; 161(9):857-64. DOI: 10.1001/archpedi.161.9.857
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To determine the US national prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and whether prevalence, recognition, and treatment vary by socioeconomic group.
Cross-sectional survey.
Nationally representative sample of the US population from 2001 to 2004.
Eight- to 15-year-old children (N = 3082) in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
The Diagnostic Interview Schedule for Children (caregiver module) was used to ascertain the presence of ADHD in the past year based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM-IV) criteria. Prior diagnosis of ADHD by a health professional and ADHD medication use were assessed by caregiver report.
Of the children, 8.7% met DSM-IV criteria for ADHD. The poorest children (lowest quintile) were more likely than the wealthiest (highest quintile) to fulfill criteria for ADHD (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-3.9). Among children meeting DSM-IV ADHD criteria, 47.9% had a prior diagnosis of ADHD and 32.0% were treated consistently with ADHD medications during the past year. Girls were less likely than boys to have their disorder identified (AOR, 0.3; 95% CI, 0.1-0.8), and the wealthiest children were more likely than the poorest to receive regular medication treatment (AOR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.3-9.1).
Of US children aged 8 to 15 years, 8.7%, an estimated 2.4 million, meet DSM-IV criteria for ADHD. Less than half of children meeting DSM-IV criteria report receiving either a diagnosis of ADHD or regular medication treatment. Poor children are most likely to meet criteria for ADHD yet are least likely to receive consistent pharmacotherapy.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Tanya E Froehlich, Jul 01, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
185 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is associated with hypofunctional medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC). Methylphenidate (MPH) remediates ADHD, in part, by inhibiting the norepinephrine transporter (NET). MPH also reduces ADHD-like symptoms in Spontaneously Hypertensive Rats (SHRs), a model of ADHD. However, effects of chronic MPH treatment on NET function in mPFC and OFC in SHR have not been reported. In the current study, long-term effects of repeated treatment with a therapeutically relevant oral dose of MPH during adolescence on NET function in subregions of mPFC (cingulate gyrus, prelimbic cortex and infralimbic cortex) and in the OFC of adult SHR, Wistar-Kyoto (WKY, inbred control) and Wistar (WIS, outbred control) rats were determined using in vivo voltammetry. Following local ejection of norepinephrine (NE), uptake rate was determined as peak amplitude (Amax) x first-order rate constant (k-1). In mPFC subregions, no strain or treatment effects were found in NE uptake rate. In OFC, NE uptake rate in vehicle-treated adult SHR was greater than in adult WKY and WIS administered vehicle. MPH treatment during adolescence normalized NE uptake rate in OFC in SHR. Thus, the current study implicates increased NET function in OFC as an underlying mechanism for reduced noradrenergic transmission in OFC, and consequently, the behavioral deficits associated with ADHD. MPH treatment during adolescence normalized NET function in OFC in adulthood, suggesting that the therapeutic action of MPH persists long after treatment cessation and may contribute to lasting reductions in deficits associated with ADHD. Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier B.V.
    Journal of Neuroscience Methods 02/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.jneumeth.2015.02.002 · 1.96 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Children with hearing loss are at risk of developing psychopathology, which has detrimental consequences for academic and psychosocial functioning later in life. Yet, the causes of the extensive variability in outcomes are not fully understood. Therefore, the authors wanted to objectify symptoms of psychopathology in children with cochlear implants or hearing aids, and in normally hearing peers, and to identify various risk and protective factors. The large sample (mean age = 11.8 years) included three subgroups with comparable age, gender, socioeconomic status, and nonverbal intelligence: 57 with cochlear implants, 75 with conventional hearing aids, and 129 children who were normally hearing. Psychopathology was assessed by means of self- and parent-report measures. Children with cochlear implants showed similar levels of symptoms of psychopathology when compared with their normally hearing peers, but children with hearing aids had significantly higher levels of psychopathological symptoms, while their hearing losses were approximately 43 dB lower than those of children with implants. Type of device was related with internalizing symptoms but not with externalizing symptoms. Furthermore, lower age and sufficient language and communication skills predicted less psychopathological symptoms. Children who are deaf or profoundly hearing impaired and have cochlear implants have lower levels of psychopathological symptoms than children with moderate or severe hearing loss who have hearing aids. Most likely, it is not the type of hearing device but rather the intensity of the rehabilitation program that can account for this difference. This outcome has major consequences for the next generation of children with hearing loss because children with profound hearing impairment still have the potential to have levels of psychopathology that are comparable to children who are normally hearing.
    Ear and Hearing 02/2015; DOI:10.1097/AUD.0000000000000147 · 2.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Drug and Alcohol Dependence 01/2015; 146:e103. DOI:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2014.09.648 · 3.28 Impact Factor