Swedish Nationwide Population Study Identifies Top Predictors of ADHD Diagnoses Among Preschoolers

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.

‍

In December 2016, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned “that repeated or lengthy use of general anesthetic and sedation drugs during surgeries or procedures in children younger than 3 years or in pregnant women during their third trimester may affect the development of children’s brains.” The FDA adds, “Health care professionals should balance the benefits of appropriate anesthesia against the potential risks, especially for procedures lasting longer than 3 hours or if multiple procedures are required in children under 3 years,” and “Studies in pregnant and young animals have shown that using these drugs for more than 3 hours caused widespread loss of brain nerve cells.”

That raises a concern that such exposure could lead to increased risk of psychiatric disorders, including ADHD.

Noting “There are inconsistent reports regarding the association between general anesthesia and adverse neurodevelopmental and behavioral disorders in children,” a South Korean study team conducted a nationwide population study to explore possible associations through the country’s single-payer health insurance database that covers roughly 97% of all residents.

The team looked at the cohort of all children born in Korea between 2008 and 2009, and followed them until December 31, 2017. They identified 93,717 children in this cohort who during surgery received general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation (a tube inserted down the trachea), and matched them with an equal number of children who were not exposed to general anesthesia.

The team matched the unexposed group with the exposed group by age, sex, birth weight, residential area at birth, and economic status.

They then assessed both groups for subsequent diagnoses of ADHD.

In general, children exposed to general anesthesia were found to have a 40% greater risk of subsequently being diagnosed with ADHD than their unexposed peers.

This effect was found to be dose dependent by several measures:

• Duration of surgery: two-to-three-hour surgeries were associated with a 50% greater risk of subsequent ADHD, and surgeries of more than three hours with a 60% greater risk.
• Number of exposures: two exposures were associated with a 54% increased risk, and three or more exposures with a 67% greater risk.
• Placement in an Intensive Care Unit was associated with a 60% greater risk of ADHD.

All three measures were highly significant.

The authors concluded, “exposure to general anesthesia with ETI [endotracheal intubation] in children is associated with an increased risk of ADHD … We must recognize the possible neurodevelopmental risk resulting from general anesthesia exposure, inform patients and parents regarding this risk, and emphasize the importance of close monitoring of mental health. However, the risk from anesthesia exposure is not superior to the importance of medical procedures. Specific research is needed for the development of safer anesthetic drugs and doses.”

A German team of researchers performed a comprehensive search of the medical literature and identified 35randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that explored this question. Participating children were between three and six years old. Children with intellectual disabilities, sensory disabilities, or specific neurological disorders such as epilepsy were excluded.

The total number of participating preschoolers was over three thousand, drawn almost exclusively from the general population, meaning these studies were not specifically evaluating effects on children with ADHD. But given that ADHD results in poorer executive functioning, evidence of the effectiveness of cognitive training would suggest it could help partially reverse such deficits.

RCTs assign participants randomly to a treatment group and a group not receiving treatment but often receiving a placebo. But RCTs themselves vary in risk of bias, depending on:

• whether the control condition was passive (i.e. waiting list or no treatment) or active/sham (an activity of similar duration and intensity to the treatment condition)
• whether the outcome was measured by subjective rating (e.g. by questionnaires, susceptible to reporting biases) or more objective neuropsychological testing;
• whether the assessment of outcome was by blinded assessors unaware of participants' treatment conditions;
• whether there was a risk of bias from participants dropping out of the trial.

After evaluating the RCTs by these criteria, the team performed a series of meta-analyses.

Combining the 23 RCTs with over 2,000 children that measured working memory, they found that cognitive training led to robust moderate improvements. Looking only at the eleven most rigorously controlled studies strengthened the effect, with moderate-to-large gains.

Twenty-six RCTs with over 2,200 children assessed inhibitory control. When pooled, they indicated a small-to-moderate improvement from cognitive training. Including only the seven most rigorously controlled studies again strengthened the effect, boosting it into the moderate effect zone.

Twelve RCTs with over 1,500 participants tested the effects of cognitive training on flexibility. When combined, they pointed to moderate gains. Looking at only the four well-controlled studies boosted the effect to strong gains. Yet here there was evidence of publication bias, so no firm conclusion can be drawn.

Only four studies with a combined total of 119 preschoolers tested the effects on ADHD ratings. The meta-analysis found a small but non-significant improvement, very likely due to insufficient sampling. As the authors noted, "some findings of the meta-analysis are limited by the insufficient number of eligible studies. Specifically, more studies are needed which use blinded assessments of subjective ratings of ADHD ... symptoms ..."

The authors concluded that their meta-analyses revealed significant, mostly medium-sized effects of the preschool interventions on core EFs [executive functions] in studies showing the low risk of bias."