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.
November 16, 2023
The US Center for Disease Control's (CDC)review of ADHD starts with the statement: "Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a serious public health problem affecting many children and adults" (http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/research.html). My colleagues and I recently reviewed the ADHD literature. That let us describe ADHD as "... a seriously impairing, often persistent neurobiological disorder of high prevalence..." (Faraone et al., 2015). The figure 1, which comes from that paper, provides an overview of the lifetime trajectory of ADHD-associated morbidity.
Especially compelling data about ADHD and injuries comes from a recent paper, in Lancet Psychiatry, which used the Danish national registers to follow a cohort of 710,120 children (Dalsgaard et al., 2015a). Compared with children not having ADHD, those with ADHD were 30% more likely to sustain injuries than other children. Pharmacotherapy for ADHD reduced the risk for injuries by 32% from 5 to 10 years of age. Pharmacotherapy for ADHD reduced emergency room visits by 28.2% at age 10and 45.7% at age 12.
These results are shown in Figure 2, taken from the publication.
Especially compelling data about ADHD and injuries comes from a recent paper, in Lancet Psychiatry, which used the Danish national registers to follow a cohort of 710,120 children (Dalsgaard et al., 2015a). Compared with children not having ADHD, those with ADHD were 30% more likely to sustain injuries than other children. Pharmacotherapy for ADHD reduced the risk for injuries by 32% from 5 to 10 years of age. Pharmacotherapy for ADHD reduced emergency room visits by 28.2%at age 10and 45.7% at age 12.
These results are shown in Figure2, taken from the publication. The Figure compares the prevalence of injuries among three groups. ADHD children treated with medication, ADHD children not treated with medication, and children without ADHD. The Figure shows how ADHD risk for injuries occurs for all age groups. It also shows how the risk for injuries drops with treatment so that by age 12, the prevalence of injuries among treated ADHD children is the same as the prevalence of injuries for children without ADHD.
Documented examples of ADHD-associated injuries which impact day-to-day functioning include severe burns (Fritz and Butz, 2007), dental injuries (Sabuncuoglu, 2007), penetrating eye injuries (Bayar et al., 2015), the hospital treated injuries (Hurtig et al., 2013), and head injuries (DiScala et al., 1998). In one study (DiScala et al., 1998), when compared to other children admitted to the hospital for injuries, ADHD children were more likely to sustain injuries in multiple body regions (57.1% vs 43%), sustain head injuries (53% vs 41%), and to be severely injured as measured by the Injury Severity Score (12.5% vs5.4%) and the Glasgow Coma Scale (7.5% vs 3.4%).
Injuries are a substantial cause of ADHD-associated premature death. This assertion comes from the work of Dalsgaard et al. (2015b)based on the same Danish registry discussed above. In this second study, ADHD was associated with an increased risk for premature death and 53% of those deaths were due to injuries. They reported the risk for premature death in three age groups: 1-5, 6-17, and >17. For all three age groups, they found a greater risk for death in the ADHD group. For ages 6 to 17 and greater than 17. The ADHD-associated risk for mortality remained significant after excluding individuals with antisocial or substance use disorders.
There are currently no data about the effect of ADHD treatment on ADHD-associated premature death. We do, however, know from the data reviewed above that ADHD treatment reduces injuries and that half the deaths in the ADHD group were due to injuries. From this, we infer that ADHD treatments could reduce the risk of ADHD-associated premature death.
Two other ADHD-associated mobilities, obesity and cigarette smoking, have clear medical consequences. In a meta-analysis of 42 cross-sectional studies comprising 48,161 people with ADHD and 679,975 controls, my colleagues and I reported that the pooled prevalence of obesity was increased by about 40% in ADHD children compared with non-ADHD children and by about 70% in ADHD adults compared with non-ADHD adults(Cortese et al.,2015). The association between ADHD and obesity was significant for ADHD medication-naïve subjects but not for those medicated for ADHD, which suggests that medication reduces the risk for obesity.
Likewise, a meta-analysis of 27 longitudinal studies assessed the risk for several addictive disorders with sample sizes ranging from 4142 to 4175 for ADHD and 6835 to 6880 for non-ADHD controls (Lee et al., 2011). Children with ADHD were at higher risk for disorders of abuse or dependence on nicotine, alcohol, marijuana, cocaine, and other unspecified substances. Another meta-analysis (42 studies totaling, 2360 participants) showed that medications for ADHD reduced the ADHD-associated risk for smoking (Schoenfelder et al., 2014). The authors concluded that, for ADHD patients, "Consistent stimulant treatment for ADHD may reduce the risk of smoking". This finding is especially notable given that, for ADHD youth, cigarette smoking is a gateway drug to more serious addictions (Biederman et al., 2006).
Yes, ADHD is a serious disorder. Although most ADHD people will be spared the worst of these outcomes, they must be considered by parents and patients when weighing the pros and cons of treatment options.
Bayar, H., Coskun, E., Oner, V., Gokcen,C., Aksoy, U., Okumus, S. & Erbagci, I. (2015). Association between penetrating eye injuries and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children.Br J Ophthalmol99, 1109-11.
Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M., Mick, E., Wilens, T., Fontanella, J.,Poetzl, K. M., Kirk, T., Masse, J. & Faraone, S. V. (2006). Is cigarette smoking a gateway drug to subsequent alcohol and illicit drug use disorders? A controlled study of youths with and without ADHD. Biol Psychiatry59, 258-64.
Cortese, S., Moreira-Maia, C. R., St Fleur, D., Morcillo-Penalver, C.,Rohde, L. A. & Faraone, S. V. (2015). Association Between ADHD and Obesity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Am J Psychiatry, appiajp201515020266.
Dalsgaard, S., Leckman, J. F., Mortensen, P. B., Nielsen, H. S. &Simonsen, M. (2015a). Effect of drugs on the risk of injuries in children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Psychiatry2, 702-9.
Dalsgaard, S., Ostergaard, S. D., Leckman, J. F., Mortensen, P. B.& Pedersen, M. G. (2015b). Mortality in children, adolescents, and adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a nationwide cohortstudy. Lancet385, 2190-6.
DiScala, C., Lescohier, I., Barthel, M. & Li, G. (1998).Injuries to children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics102, 1415-21.
Faraone, S. V., Asherson, P., Banaschewski, T., Biederman, J.,Buitelaar, J. K., Ramos-Quiroga, J. A., Rohde, L. A., Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S.,Tannock, R. & Franke, B. (2015). Attention deficit hyperactivitydisorder. In Nature Reviews: DiseasePrimers.
Fritz, K. M. & Butz, C. (2007). Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and pediatric burn injury: important considerations regarding premorbid risk. Curr Opin Pediatr19, 565-9.
Hurtig, T., Ebeling, H., Jokelainen, J., Koivumaa-Honkanen, H. &Taanila, A. (2013). The Association Between Hospital-Treated Injuries and ADHD Symptoms in Childhood and Adolescence: A Follow-Up Study in the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1986. J Atten Disord.
Lee, S. S., Humphreys, K. L., Flory, K., Liu, R. & Glass, K. (2011).Prospective association of childhood attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder(ADHD) and substance use and abuse/dependence: a meta-analytic review. Clin Psychol Rev31, 328-41.
Sabuncuoglu, O. (2007). Traumatic dental injuries and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: is there a link? Dent Traumatol23,137-42.
Schoenfelder, E. N., Faraone, S. V. & Kollins, S. H. (2014).Stimulant treatment of ADHD and cigarette smoking: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics133, 1070-1080.
A landmark nationwide study from South Korea has uncovered a significant link between prenatal exposure to air pollution — specifically nitrogen dioxide (NO2) — and an increased risk of ADHD in children.
While researchers have long suspected that air pollutants interfere with fetal brain development through inflammation and oxidative stress, this study is one of the largest and most comprehensive of its kind, following nearly 1.5 million births for up to 13 years.
Why South Korea?
South Korea provided a unique countrywide “laboratory” for this research due to two key infrastructure strengths:
Key Findings: The “Smoking Gun” of NO2
While the study looked at several pollutants, nitrogen dioxide — a byproduct of fossil fuel combustion in cars and power plants — emerged as the primary concern.
Pollutant
Association with ADHD Risk
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
Strongest Link: Every 1-ppb (part-per-billion) increase in exposure linked to a 22% rise in risk.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
Minimal Link: Only a slight 4% increase per ppb.
Ozone (O3) carbon monoxide (CO), & particulates
No significant association was found.
The scale of the NO2 risk is particularly striking. Over the typical range of exposure levels found in the study (an interquartile range of 13 ppb), the data suggest a threefold increase in ADHD risk for children in the highest-exposure groups compared to the lowest.
Accounting for Other Factors
To ensure the results weren’t skewed by other variables, the researchers controlled for a wide range of confounders including:
The authors emphasized the strong association between maternal nitrogen dioxide exposure and ADHD, while also noting the small but significant association with sulfur dioxide.
The Take-Away: A New Frontier for Public Health
Historically, air quality laws have been designed to protect our lungs and hearts. However, this study adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that the brain is likewise vulnerable.
In a commentary on the findings, expert George Ayoub argued that “neurodevelopment should be explicitly considered” when governments perform cost-benefit analyses on air quality regulation. My view is a bit different. The association is intriguing but the study does not establish cause and effect. Many statistically significant environmental risk associations for neurodevelopmental disorders have disappeared after controlling for maternal risk for ADHD. I hope this research team will do those analyses if feasible.
Executive functions (EFs) are the cognitive control systems that allow people to pursue goals, make decisions, and adapt to changing circumstances. Researchers generally break them into three overlapping capacities: working memory (holding and manipulating information in mind), inhibitory control (suppressing impulses and filtering out distractions), and cognitive flexibility (switching between tasks or mental frameworks). Strong EFs in childhood predict academic achievement, social competence, and long-term mental health; weaknesses in these areas that go unaddressed can persist into adulthood, undermining school performance, career prospects, and well-being.
The Background:
Interest in training these skills has grown rapidly, but most research has been conducted in Western settings. China presents a distinctive context. Collectivist values make group-based programs culturally natural, and parental investment in academic outcomes is high. Both of these factors should, in theory, work in an intervention’s favor. At the same time, tightly scheduled school days (sessions typically capped at 30 minutes or less) constrain what is actually deliverable. A growing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have tested EF interventions with Chinese children, but until now, no one has pulled that evidence together systematically.
The Study:
A new network meta-analysis did exactly that. The researchers screened RCTs involving Chinese children aged 3–12, including both typically developing children and those showing subclinical signs of ADHD or autism spectrum disorder (ASD), for instance, siblings of children with an ASD diagnosis. Children who already carried a formal neurodevelopmental diagnosis were excluded. Fifty-two trials covering nearly 3,000 children met the inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into four categories:
The headline finding is that three of the four intervention types produced statistically significant improvements across all three EF domains. The exception was the hybrid physical-cognitive program, which did not reach significance for inhibitory control. Positive results across the board might sound encouraging until you look at the actual effect sizes.
The Results:
The actual effects were negligible. Every significant result fell well below what methodologists define as a “small” effect (a standardized mean difference, or SMD, of 0.2). The largest effect size in the entire analysis was an SMD of 0.097 (less than half that threshold). The authors summarize the interventions’ effects as “modest,” but that is generous phrasing for numbers that, in practical terms, amount to very little. The analysis also showed signs of publication bias, meaning that studies with null or negative results may not have been published, potentially inflating even these modest figures.
The Take-Away:
It is important to note that these results don’t necessarily mean that this is the last word on EF training. The results apply specifically to Chinese children working within the time constraints of Chinese school schedules, and they exclude children with diagnosed ADHD, a population for whom cognitive interventions sometimes show larger effects. Generalizing beyond those boundaries is unwarranted.
What the findings do suggest is that structured EF programs, as currently implemented in Chinese educational settings, are not delivering meaningful real-world benefits. Statistical significance, it is worth remembering, is not the same as practical significance, and the gap between the two is sharp here.
.png)
Language is powerful. The words we choose not only reflect our understanding of the world but also actively shape it. Recently, this truth has been at the center of a growing debate in the mental health field regarding how we talk about ADHD.
In a recent paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry titled “The Power of Words: Respectful Language in ADHD Research,” French and colleagues advocated for a shift toward "neurodiversity-affirmative language”. Rooted in the social model of disability, their proposal encourages researchers to abandon traditional medical terminology, e.g., words like disorder and deficit, in favor of more neutral terms such as condition and challenge.
My colleague, Dr. Michael Miller, and I read this with great interest. We completely agree that revising language is essential to good science and that, both as researchers and as human beings, we are ethically bound to speak respectfully. However, we felt compelled to write a response. In our new paper, we argue that while language must evolve, it must do so scientifically.
The Two Prerequisites for Language Change
If we are going to fundamentally shift our scientific lexicon, two requirements must be met:
Currently, the proposal by French and colleagues meets neither requirement. While they claim consensus is accumulating that certain terms are disrespectful, they provide zero empirical evidence that this view is shared by the community of individuals living with ADHD. Even proponents of patient-centered language admit there is surprisingly little data supporting specific language changes.
More alarmingly, the recommended changes severely dilute the scientific accuracy of our field. Let’s look at two examples.
Why a "Deficit" is Not Just a “Challenge"
French and colleagues suggest replacing the term deficit with challenge. On the surface, challenge sounds softer and more affirming. But scientifically, these words are not interchangeable.
For decades, the term deficit has been defined by a specific performance metric that falls substantially below an expected level. It is a measurable reality. A challenge, on the other hand, refers to a new or difficult task that tests someone's ability.
Every single human being is "challenged" by complex neuropsychological tests, but only some individuals who face that challenge demonstrate scientifically significant deficits. If we relabel measurable deficits as universal challenges, we sacrifice the exactness required to communicate scientific findings and accurately measure the effects of life-changing treatments.
ADHD is a Disorder, Not Just a "Condition"
Another proposal is to replace the word disorder with condition.
In mainstream psychiatry, a disorder is a clinically significant disturbance that causes distress or disability. The word purposefully separates natural human variation from the suffering (pathos) that gives pathology its meaning.
Condition is a completely neutral term. Pregnancy is a condition. Being tall is a condition. Calling ADHD a condition distances the diagnosis from the profound suffering it can cause.
French et al. argue against framing ADHD as a disorder because it exists on a spectrum without a clear cutoff, its manifestation is context-dependent, and its definition evolves. But if we apply that logic across all of medicine, the concept of disease unravels:
The Real-World Danger of Imprecise Language
This is not merely an academic debate over semantics. The language we use has real-world implications. In the United States and across the globe, our healthcare, educational, and legal systems run on precise medical language. Terms like impairment, dysfunction, and disorder are legally and administratively required to justify support services, workplace accommodations, specialized educational therapies, and medications. The language of pathology in diagnostic manuals regulates the flow of these resources.
If we reclassify ADHD as a neutral condition characterized only by challenges, we risk erecting massive bureaucratic barriers. Imprecise language could easily be used by institutions or insurance companies to deny vital care to the people who need it most.
The Need for Lexical Discipline
Attempting to characterize a clinical disorder entirely through its strengths happens in a scientific vacuum. We cannot ignore the vast body of rigorous evidence confirming that ADHD meets the long-standing criteria used by mental health science to identify clinical disorders.
As professionals, our respect for the ADHD community demands a commitment to language that is clear, correct, and evidence-based. To build genuine consensus about how we talk about ADHD, we need meaningful, collaborative dialogue that integrates compelling empirical data and rigorous theory.
This standard of "lexical discipline" is not just a technical preference. It is a vital mechanism through which science and the mental health professions uphold their duty to society.
_logo%201.svg)
