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.
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.
.png)
This New York Times article, “5 Takeaways from New Research about ADHD”, earns a poor grade for accuracy. Let’s break down their (often misleading and frequently inaccurate) claims about ADHD.
The Claim: A.D.H.D. is hard to define/ No ADHD Biomarkers exist
The Reality: The claim that ADHD is hard to define “because scientists haven’t found a single biological marker” is misleading at best. While it is true that no biomarker exists, decades of rigorous research using structured clinical interviews and standardized rating scales show that ADHD is reliably diagnosed. Decades of validation research consistently show that ADHD is indeed a biologically-based disorder. One does not need a biomarker to draw that conclusion and recent research about ADHD has not changed that conclusion.
Additionally, research has in fact confirmed that genetics do play a role in the development of ADHD and several genes associated with ADHD have been identified.
The Claim: The efficacy of medication wanes over time
The Reality: The article’s statement that medications like Adderall or Ritalin only provide short-term benefits that fade over time is wrong. It relies almost entirely on one study—the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA). In the MTA study, the relative advantage of medication over behavioral treatments diminished after 36 months. This was largely because many patients who had not initially been given medication stopped taking it and many who had only been treated with behavior therapy suddenly began taking medication. The MTA shows that patients frequently switched treatments. It does not overturn other data documenting that these medications are highly effective. Moreover, many longitudinal studies clearly demonstrate sustained benefits of ADHD medications in reducing core symptoms, psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and serious negative outcomes, including accidents, and school dropout rates. A study of nearly 150,000 people with ADHD in Sweden concluded “Among individuals diagnosed with ADHD, medication initiation was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, particularly for death due to unnatural causes”. The NY Times’ claim that medications lose their beneficial effects over time ignores compelling evidence to the contrary.
The Claim: Medications don’t help children with ADHD learn
The Reality: ADHD medications are proven to reliably improve attention, increase time spent on tasks, and reduce disruptive behavior, all critical factors directly linked to better academic performance.The article’s assertion that ADHD medications improve only classroom behavior and do not actually help students learn also oversimplifies and misunderstands the research evidence. While medication alone might not boost IQ or cognitive ability in a direct sense, extensive research confirms significant objective improvements in academic productivity and educational success—contrary to the claim made in the article that the medication’s effect is merely emotional or perceptual, rather than genuinely educational.
For example, a study of students with ADHD who were using medication intermittingly concluded “Individuals with ADHD had higher scores on the higher education entrance tests during periods they were taking ADHD medication vs non-medicated periods. These findings suggest that ADHD medications may help ameliorate educationally relevant outcomes in individuals with ADHD.”
The Claim: Changing a child’s environment can change his or her symptoms.
The Reality: The Times article asserts that ADHD symptoms are influenced by environmental fluctuations and thus might not have their roots in neurobiology. We have known for many years that the symptoms of ADHD fluctuate with environmental demands. The interpretation of this given by the NY Times is misleading because it confuses symptom variability with underlying causes. Many disorders with well-established biological origins are sensitive to environmental factors, yet their biology remains undisputed.
For example, hypertension is unquestionably a biologically based condition involving genetic and physiological factors. However, it is also well-known that environmental stressors, dietary
habits, and lifestyle factors can significantly worsen or improve hypertension. Similarly, asthma is biologically rooted in inflammation and airway hyper-reactivity, but environmental triggers such as allergens, pollution, or even emotional stress clearly impact symptom severity. Just as these environmental influences on hypertension or asthma do not negate their biological basis, the responsiveness of ADHD symptoms to environmental fluctuations (e.g., improvements in classroom structure, supportive home life) does not imply that ADHD lacks neurobiological roots. Rather, it underscores that ADHD, like many medical conditions, emerges from the interplay between underlying biological vulnerabilities and environmental influences.
Claim: There is no clear dividing line between those who have A.D.H.D. and those who don’t.
The Reality: This is absolutely and resoundingly false. The article’s suggestion that ADHD diagnosis is arbitrary because ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum rather than as a clear-cut, binary condition is misleading. Although it is true that ADHD symptoms—like inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity—do vary continuously across the population, the existence of this continuum does not make the diagnosis arbitrary or invalidate the disorder’s biological basis. Many well-established medical conditions show the same pattern. For instance, hypertension (high blood pressure) and hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) both involve measures that are continuously distributed. Blood pressure and cholesterol levels exist along a continuum, yet clear diagnostic thresholds have been carefully established through decades of clinical research. Their continuous distribution does not lead clinicians to question whether these conditions have biological origins or whether diagnosing an individual with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia is arbitrary. Rather, it underscores that clinical decisions and diagnostic thresholds are established using evidence about what levels lead to meaningful impairment or increased risk of negative health outcomes. Similarly, the diagnosis of ADHD has been meticulously defined and refined over many decades using extensive empirical research, structured clinical interviews, and validated rating scales. The diagnostic criteria developed by experts carefully delineate the point at which symptoms become severe enough to cause significant impairment in an individual’s daily functioning. Far from being arbitrary, these thresholds reflect robust scientific evidence that individuals meeting these criteria face increased risks for the serious impairments in life including accidents, suicide and premature death.
The existence of milder forms of ADHD does not undermine the validity of the diagnosis; rather, it emphasizes the clinical reality that people experience varying degrees of symptom severity.
Moreover, acknowledging variability in severity has always been a core principle in medicine. Clinicians routinely adjust treatments to meet individual patient needs. Not everyone diagnosed with hypertension receives identical medication regimens, nor does everyone with elevated cholesterol get prescribed the same intervention. Similarly, people with ADHD receive personalized treatment plans tailored to the severity of their symptoms, their specific impairments, and their individual circumstances. This personalization is not evidence of arbitrariness; it is precisely how evidence-based medicine is practiced. In sum, the continuous nature of ADHD symptoms is fully compatible with a biologically-based diagnosis that has substantial evidence for validity, and acknowledging symptom variability does not render diagnosis arbitrary or diminish its clinical importance.
In sum, readers seeking a balanced, evidence-based understanding of ADHD deserve clearer, more careful reporting. By overstating diagnostic uncertainty, selectively interpreting research about medication efficacy, and inaccurately portraying the educational benefits of medication, this article presents an overly simplistic, misleading picture of ADHD.
A Chinese research team performed two types of meta-analyses to compare the risk of suicide for ADHD patients taking ADHD medication as opposed to those not taking medication.
The first type of meta-analysis combined six large population studies with a total of over 4.7 million participants. These were located on three continents - Europe, Asia, and North America - and more specifically Sweden, England, Taiwan, and the United States.
The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be about a quarter less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p = 0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). There were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications produced divergent outcomes. A meta-analysis of four population studies covering almost 900,000 individuals found stimulant medications to be associated with a 28 percent reduced risk of suicide. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 62,000 individuals found no significant difference in suicide risk for non-stimulant medications. The benefit, therefore, seems limited to stimulant medication.
The second type of meta-analysis combined three within-individual studies with over 3.9 million persons in the United States, China, and Sweden. The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be almost a third less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were again barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p =0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). Once again, there were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced the sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications once again produced divergent outcomes. Meta-analysis of the same three studies found a 25 percent reduced risk of suicide among those taking stimulant medications. But as in the population studies, a meta-analysis of two studies with over 3.9 million persons found no reduction in risk among those taking non-stimulant medications.
A further meta-analysis of two studies with 3.9 million persons found no reduction in suicide risk among persons taking ADHD medications for 90 days or less, "revealing the importance of duration and adherence to medication in all individuals prescribed stimulants for ADHD."
The authors concluded, "exposure to non-stimulants is not associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. However, a lower risk of suicide attempts was observed for stimulant drugs. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the evidence of heterogeneity ..."
Parents and teachers often ask: Does ADHD medication actually improve grades and school performance? The answer is: yes, but with important limitations. Medications are very effective at reducing inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity but their impact on long-term academic outcomes like grades and test scores is not as consistent.
In the Classroom
The medications for ADHD consistently: Improve attention, reduce classroom disruptions, increase time spent on-task and help children complete more schoolwork and homework. Medication can help children with ADHD access learning by improving the conditions for paying attention and persisting with work.
Does Medication Improve Test Scores and Grades?
This is where the picture gets more complicated. Medications have stronger effect on how much work is completed but a weaker effect on accuracy. Many studies show that children on medication attempt more problems in reading, math, and spelling, but the number of correct answers doesn’t always improve as much. Some studies find small but significant improvements in national exam scores and higher education entrance tests during periods when children with ADHD are medicated.
Grades improve, as well, but modestly. Large registry studies in Sweden show that students who consistently take medication earn higher grades than those who don’t. However, these gains usually do not close the achievement gap with peers who do not have ADHD.
Keep in mind that small improvements for a group as a whole mean that some children are benefiting greatly from medication and others not at all. We have no way of predicting which children will improve and which do not.
Medication Alone Isn’t Enough
Academic success depends on more than just reducing inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. Skills like organization, planning, studying, and managing long-term projects are also critical. Medication cannot teach these skills.
So, in addition to medication, the patient's treatment program should include educational support (tutoring, structured study skills programs), behavioral interventions (parent training, classroom management strategies), and accommodations at school (extra time, reduced distractions, organizational aids) Parents should discuss with their prescriber which of these methods would be appropriate.
Conclusions
ADHD medication is a powerful tool for reducing symptoms and supporting learning. It improves test scores and grades for some children, especially when taken consistently. But it is not a magic bullet for academic success. The best results come when medication is combined with educational and behavioral supports that help children build the skills they need to thrive in school and beyond.
If you or someone you know has ADHD, you may be familiar with the challenge of staying on medication. Stimulants like methylphenidate (Ritalin) are the most common and effective treatment for ADHD, but a surprisingly large number of people stop taking them within the first year. In our new study, published in Translational Psychiatry, we sought to determine whether a person's genetic makeup plays a role in the development of the disorder.
What We Did
We analyzed data from over 18,000 people with ADHD in Denmark, all of whom had started stimulant medication. We tracked whether they stopped treatment within the first year, defined as going more than six months without filling a prescription. Nearly 4 in 10 (39%) had discontinued by that point. We then looked at their genetic data to see whether DNA differences could help explain who was more likely to stop.
What We Found
The short answer is: genetics does play a role, but it's modest. No single gene had a dramatic effect. Instead, we found that a collection of small genetic influences—distributed across the genome—contributed to the likelihood of stopping treatment early.
One of the most consistent findings was that people with a higher genetic predisposition for psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia, depression, or general mental health difficulties were more likely to discontinue their medication. This was true across all age groups. Interestingly, having a higher genetic risk for ADHD itself was not associated with stopping treatment, suggesting that the genetics of having ADHD and the genetics of staying on medication are quite different things.
We also found that the genetic picture looks different depending on age. In children under 16, body weight genetics (BMI) played a surprising role, children with a genetic tendency toward higher weight were actually less likely to stop, possibly because stimulant-related appetite suppression is less of a problem for them. In older adolescents and adults, higher genetic potential for educational attainment and IQ was linked to staying on treatment, possibly reflecting better access to information and healthcare support.
On the rare variant side, we found a tentative signal that people who stopped treatment had fewer disruptive variants in genes involved in dopamine, the brain chemical that stimulants work on. This might mean that those who continue on medication genuinely have more disruption in their dopamine system and benefit more from stimulant treatment.
What This Means
Our findings suggest that stopping ADHD medication early isn't simply a matter of willpower or forgetting to take a pill. Biology matters. A person's broader genetic vulnerabilities, particularly for other psychiatric disorders, may make it harder to stay on treatment, perhaps because of side effects, poor response, or the complexity of managing multiple mental health challenges at once.
We're still far from being able to use genetics to predict who will stop their medication, the effects we found are real but small, and much of the variation in treatment persistence remains unexplained. But this work is a step toward understanding the biological foundations of treatment challenges in ADHD, and hopefully toward more personalized approaches to care in the future.
Larger studies and research that can distinguish why people stop (side effects versus poor response versus practical barriers), will be the next steps.
ADHD affects both individuals and society in many ways. Children and adolescents with ADHD often struggle with focusing, controlling impulses, and staying organized, which leads to problems with schoolwork, learning, and taking tests. These challenges can cause academic failure and make it harder for them to stay in school.
ADHD symptoms often continue into adulthood, affecting jobs, relationships, and increasing risks for substance abuse and legal problems.
Families of children and adolescents with ADHD face extra stress, with parents more likely to experience depression, anxiety, and relationship difficulties. The economic impact is also large, with billions spent each year on medical care, special education, lost productivity, and other related costs.
Current treatments for ADHD mostly include medication, behavioral therapy, and educational support. While medications like stimulants can help control ADHD symptoms in the short term, they often cause side effects such as loss of appetite, trouble sleeping, slowed growth, cardiovascular risks, and potential substance dependence. These issues can make it hard for children and adolescents to stay on their medication, and about a third either don’t respond well or can’t tolerate the side effects. Once medication is stopped, the benefits fade quickly and do not lead to lasting improvements in executive functions (thinking skills).
Behavioral therapy and parent training can help with behavior problems, but have limited effects on core mental skills like planning and self-control. These approaches also tend to be expensive, require a lot of support from parents and teachers, and are hard to use widely in schools and communities that lack resources.
Recently, exercise interventions have attracted growing interest as a non-pharmacological option. They provide several benefits: no drug-related side effects, easy accessibility, low cost, simple implementation in schools and communities, and enhanced physical and mental health.
Previous meta-analyses examining how exercise interventions affect children and adolescents with ADHD have used traditional univariate models, which treat each study as if it only offers one independent effect size. In contrast, this study used multilevel meta-analysis — a more advanced statistical method modelling both between-study and within-study effects. This approach results in more accurate estimates and more dependable conclusions.
Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with usual care, no intervention, or waitlist controls, involving children and adolescents aged 5–18 diagnosed with ADHD by internationally recognized diagnostic criteria, and reporting inhibitory control outcomes.
Eleven studies combining 512 children and adolescents met these inclusion standards.
The analysis between experimental and control groups indicated that the exercise intervention group had significantly improved inhibitory control performance compared to the control group, with a medium-to-large effect size. There was very little variation (heterogeneity) in outcome between the studies, and no sign of publication bias.
Within-group analyses showed that experimental groups had significant improvements after the intervention compared to baseline, with large effect sizes and moderate heterogeneity.
By comparison, analyzing control groups over the same period revealed no significant differences, indicating that inhibitory control abilities in these groups remained largely unchanged throughout the observation period. There was little heterogeneity.
Nevertheless, only one of the studies was rated low risk of bias, nine had some concerns, and two were rated high risk of bias. The greatest shortcomings were a lack of blinding and preregistration.
The study authors therefore concluded that the overall evidence quality of this meta-analysis is low, limiting confidence in the results. While exercise interventions seem to improve inhibitory control abilities in children and adolescents with ADHD, significant methodological limitations create uncertainty about the effect size. These require more rigorous future studies to clarify these effects. Despite these caveats, they noted that all included studies reported statistically significant, consistent benefits from exercise interventions, offering preliminary support for their use as an adjunctive approach.
Takeaway
This study lands in the same conversation as the adult ADHD exercise meta-analysis, and together they start to form a coherent picture: exercise appears to support attention and impulse control across the lifespan for people with ADHD, not just in one age group. The honest caveat is that the research quality in this field is still catching up to the enthusiasm — most studies have design weaknesses that limit confidence in the exact size of the effect. But the consistency of findings across studies, age groups, and now two separate meta-analyses is hard to dismiss.
A new study in the respected journal PLOS One analyzes data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) to examine trends in the incidence, prevalence, and disability-adjusted life-years associated with ADHD among adolescents and young adults aged 10 to 24 years between 1990 and 2021.
The GBD 2021, released by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (U.S.), is a comprehensive global analysis of 371 diseases, injuries, and risk factors – such as ADHD – across 204 countries from 1990 to 2021. Its open-source data are publicly available.
First, a distinction. Incidence measures the number of new cases of a disease that develop in a specific population each year. Prevalence measures the total number of existing cases – both new and pre-existing – in a population each year.
The estimated global incidence of ADHD declined marginally from 12.61 per 100,000 population in 1990 to 11.89 per 100,000 population in 2021, representing an average annual decrease of 0.6% in age-standardized incidence. The rates observed were comparable between males and females.
Regional trends varied: Western Europe had the highest rise in ADHD incidence (0.5% annually), while North Africa and the Middle East saw the largest drop (0.7% annually). Overall, a higher Socio-Demographic Index (SDI) is linked to a greater incidence, although it is far from a perfect fit. Nationally, showed the highest increase in ADHD incidence (1.15% annually), while Qatar showed the largest decrease with an annualized reduction of 1.77%.
The estimated global prevalence of ADHD declined marginally from 2.38% in 1990 to 2.17% in 2021. Again, the decline was similar for males and females, and across all age groups (10-14, 15-19, 20-24). Higher SDI was associated with higher prevalence, but inconsistently.
Disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) combine years lost from early death and years lived with disability to measure disease burden. Globally, the age-standardized DALYs rate for ADHD decreased slightly from 30.3 per 100,000 population to 26.6 per 100,000 population, for an average annual decline of 0.6%. The decline occurred across age groups and was similar between males and females.
The authors concluded that ADHD rates and related health burdens have generally declined over the past quarter century, though recent patterns are less consistent due to factors like socioeconomic changes and evolving diagnostic standards. Continued research is needed to improve the accuracy and accessibility of ADHD diagnosis and treatment to further reduce its global impact.
Take-Away:
The broader takeaway is one of cautious reassurance. Despite rising public awareness and diagnosis rates in many Western countries, the global picture over 25 years shows a gentle decline in ADHD burden among young people as opposed to a crisis of escalating proportions as social media may make one think. That said, the variation between regions suggests that access to diagnosis, cultural factors, and reporting standards are shaping the numbers as much as underlying biology. Progress is real but uneven, and the work of improving equitable access to diagnosis and care is far from finished.
_logo%201.svg)
