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.
October 15, 2025
Many news outlets have reported an increase – or surge – in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD, diagnoses in both children and adults. At the same time, health care providers, teachers and school systems have reported an uptick in requests for ADHD assessments.
These reports have led some experts and parents to wonder whether ADHD is being overdiagnosed and overtreated.
As researchers who have spent our careers studying neurodevelopmental disorders like ADHD, we are concerned that fears about widespread overdiagnosis are misplaced, perhaps based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the condition.
Discussions about overdiagnosis of ADHD imply that you either have it or you don’t.
However, when epidemiologists ask people in the general population about their symptoms of ADHD, some have a few symptoms, some have a moderate level, and a few have lots of symptoms. But there is no clear dividing line between those who are diagnosed with ADHD and those who are not, since ADHD – much like blood pressure – occurs on a spectrum.
Treating mild ADHD is similar to treating mild high blood pressure – it depends on the situation. Care can be helpful when a doctor considers the details of a person’s daily life and how much the symptoms are affecting them.
Not only can ADHD symptoms be very different from person to person, but research shows that ADHD symptoms can change within an individual. For example, symptoms become more severe when the challenges of life increase.
ADHD symptoms fluctuate depending on many factors, including whether the person is at school or home, whether they have had enough sleep, if they are under a great deal of stress or if they are taking medications or other substances. Someone who has mild ADHD may not experience many symptoms while they are on vacation and well rested, for example, but they may have impairing symptoms if they have a demanding job or school schedule and have not gotten enough sleep. These people may need treatment for ADHD in certain situations but may do just fine without treatment in other situations.
This is similar to what is seen in conditions like high blood pressure, which can change from day to day or from month to month, depending on a person’s diet, stress level and many other factors.
ADHD symptoms start in early childhood and typically are at their worst in mid-to late childhood. Thus, the average age of diagnosis is between 9 and 12 years old. This age is also the time when children are transitioning from elementary school to middle school and may also be experiencing changes in their environment that make their symptoms worse.
Classes can be more challenging beginning around fifth grade than in earlier grades. In addition, the transition to middle school typically means that children move from having all their subjects taught by one teacher in a single classroom to having to change classrooms with a different teacher for each class. These changes can exacerbate symptoms that were previously well-controlled. Symptoms can also wax and wane throughout life.
Psychiatric problems that often co-occur with ADHD, such as anxiety or depression, can worsen ADHD symptoms that are already present. These conditions can also mimic ADHD symptoms, making it difficult to know which to treat. High levels of stress leading to poorer sleep, and increased demands at work or school, can also exacerbate or cause ADHD-like symptoms.
Finally, the use of some substances, such as marijuana or sedatives, can worsen, or even cause, ADHD symptoms. In addition to making symptoms worse in someone who already has an ADHD diagnosis, these factors can also push someone who has mild symptoms into full-blown ADHD, at least for a short time.
The reverse is also true: Symptoms of ADHD can be minimized or reversed in people who do not meet full diagnostic criteria once the external cause is removed.
Clinicians diagnose ADHD based on symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. To make an ADHD diagnosis in children, six or more symptoms in at least one of these three categories must be present. For adults, five or more symptoms are required, but they must begin in childhood. For all ages, the symptoms must cause serious problems in at least two areas of life, such as home, school or work.
Current estimates show that the strict prevalence of ADHD is about 5% in children. In young adults, the figure drops to 3%, and it is less than 1% after age 60. Researchers use the term “strict prevalence” to mean the percentage of people who meet all of the criteria for ADHD based on epidemiological studies. It is an important number because it provides clinicians and scientists with an estimate on how many people are expected to have ADHD in a given group of people.
In contrast, the “diagnosed prevalence” is the percentage of people who have been diagnosed with ADHD based on real-world assessments by health care professionals. The diagnosed prevalence in the U.S. and Canada ranges from 7.5% to 11.1% in children under age 18. These rates are quite a bit higher than the strict prevalence of 5%.
Some researchers claim that the difference between the diagnosed prevalence and the strict prevalence means that ADHD is overdiagnosed.
We disagree. In clinical practice, the diagnostic rules allow a patient to be diagnosed with ADHD if they have most of the symptoms that cause distress, impairment or both, even when they don’t meet the full criteria. And much evidence shows that increases in the diagnostic prevalence can be attributed to diagnosing milder cases that may have been missed previously. The validity of these mild diagnoses is well-documented.
Consider children who have five inattentive symptoms and five hyperactive-impulsive symptoms. These children would not meet strict diagnostic criteria for ADHD even though they clearly have a lot of ADHD symptoms. But in clinical practice, these children would be diagnosed with ADHD if they had marked distress, disability or both because of their symptoms – in other words, if the symptoms were interfering substantially with their everyday lives.
So it makes sense that the diagnosed prevalence of ADHD is substantially higher than the strict prevalence.
People who are concerned about overdiagnosis commonly worry that people are taking medications they don’t need or that they are diverting resources away from those who need it more. Other concerns are that people may experience side effects from the medications, or that they may be stigmatized by a diagnosis.
Those concerns are important. However, there is strong evidence that underdiagnosis and undertreatment of ADHD lead to serious negative outcomes in school, work, mental health and quality of life.
In other words, the risks of not treating ADHD are well-established. In contrast, the potential harms of overdiagnosis remain largely unproven.
It is important to consider how to manage the growing number of milder cases, however. Research suggests that children and adults with less severe ADHD symptoms may benefit less from medication than those with more severe symptoms.
This raises an important question: How much benefit is enough to justify treatment? These are decisions best made in conversations between clinicians, patients and caregivers.
Because ADHD symptoms can shift with age, stress, environment and other life circumstances, treatment needs to be flexible. For some, simple adjustments like classroom seating changes, better sleep or reduced stress may be enough. For others, medication, behavior therapy, or a combination of these interventions may be necessary. The key is a personalized approach that adapts as patients’ needs evolve over time.
https://theconversation.com/yes-adhd-diagnoses-are-rising-but-that-doesnt-mean-its-overdiagnosed-257108?utm_medium=article_clipboard_share&utm_source=theconversation.com
A cohort study looked at over five million adults, and over 850,000 children between the ages of five and eleven, who received care at Kaiser Permanente Northern California during the ten-year period from the beginning of 2007 through the end of 2016. At any given time, KPNC serves roughly four million persons. It is representative of the population of the region, except for the highest and lowest income strata.
Among adults rates of ADHD diagnosis rose from 0.43% to 0.96%. Among children the diagnosis rates rose from 2.96% to 3.74%, ending up almost four times as high as for adults.
Non-Hispanic whites had the highest adult rates throughout, increasing from 0.67% in 2007 to 1.42% in 2016. American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) had the second highest rates, rising from 0.56% to 1.14%. Blacks and Hispanics had roughly comparable rates of diagnosis, the former rising from 0.22% to 0.69%, the latter from 0.25% to 0.65%. The lowest rates were among Asians (rising from 0.11% to 0.35%) and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders (increasing from 0.11% to 0.39%).
Odds of diagnosis dropped steeply with age among adults. Relative to 18-24-year-olds, 25-34-year-olds were 1/6th less likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, 35-44-year-olds 1/3rd less likely, 45-54-year-olds less than half as likely, 55-64-year-olds less than a quarter as likely, and those over 65 about a twentieth as likely. This is consistent with other studies reporting and age dependent decline in the diagnosis.
Adults with the highest levels of education were twice as likely to be diagnosed as those with the lowest levels. But variations in median household income had almost no effect. Women were marginally less likely to be diagnosed than men.
ADHD is associated with some other psychiatric disorders. Compared with normally developing adults, and adjusted for confounders, those with ADHD were five times as likely to have an eating disorder, over four times as likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder or depression, more than twice as likely to suffer from anxiety, but only slightly more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol.
The authors speculate that rising rates of diagnosis could reflect increasing recognition of ADHD in adults by physicians and other clinicians as well as growing public awareness of ADHD during the decade under study. Turning to the strong differences among ethnicities, they note, Racial/ethnic differences could also reflect differential rates of treatment seeking or access to care. Racial/ethnic background is known to play an important role in opinions on mental health services, health care utilization, and physician preferences. In addition, rates of diagnosis- seeking to obtain stimulant medication for nonmedical use may be more common among white vs nonwhite patients. They conclude, greater consideration must be placed on cultural influences on health care seeking and delivery, along with an increased understanding of the various social, psychological, and biological differences among races/ethnicities as well as culturally sensitive approaches to identify and treat ADHD in the total population.
But the main take home message of this work is that most cases of ADHD in adults are not being diagnosed by clinicians. We know from population studies, worldwide, that about three percent of adults suffer from the disorder. This study found that less than 1 percent are diagnosed by their doctors. Clearly, more education is needed to teach clinicians how to identify, diagnose and treat ADHD in adults.
The diagnosis of ADHD should only be done by a licensed clinician, and that clinician should have one goal in mind: to plan a safe and effective course of evidence-based treatment. The infographic gives a summary of this diagnostic approach which my colleagues and I prepared for our "Primer" about ADHD,http://rdcu.be/gYyV. A key point that parents of ADHD youth and adults with ADHD should keep in mind is that there is only one way to diagnose ADHD.An expert clinician must document the criteria for the disorder as specified by either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which is now in its fifth edition (DSM-5), or the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). The two sets of criteria are nearly identical. These criteria are most commonly applied by a clinician asking questions of the parent (for children) and/or patient (for adolescents and adults).For children, information from the teacher can be useful. Some clinicians get this information by having the parent ask the teacher to fill out a rating scale. This information can be very useful if it is available. When diagnosing adults, it is also useful to collect information from a significant other, which can be a parent for young adults or a spouse for older adults. But when such informants are not available, diagnosing ADHD based on the patient's self-report is valid. As the infographic indicates, any diagnosis of ADHD should also assess for comorbid psychiatric disorders, as these have implications for which ADHD medications will be safe and effective. And because a prior history of cardiovascular disease or seizures frequently contraindicate stimulants. These must also be assessed.
.png)
The report "Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Diagnosis, Treatment, and Telehealth Use in Adults" published in the CDC's Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report provides a detailed examination of the prevalence and treatment of ADHD among U.S. adults based on data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics Rapid Surveys System during October–November 2023. This data is crucial as it offers updated estimates on the prevalence of ADHD in adults, a condition often regarded as primarily affecting children, and highlights the ongoing challenges in accessing ADHD-related treatments, including telehealth services and medication availability.
The methods used in this study involved the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) Rapid Surveys System (RSS), which gathers data to approximate the national representation of U.S. adults through two commercial survey panels: the AmeriSpeak Panel from NORC at the University of Chicago and Ipsos’s KnowledgePanel. The data were collected via online and telephone interviews from 7,046 adults. The responses were weighted to reflect the total U.S. adult population, ensuring that the results approximate national estimates. In identifying adults with current ADHD, respondents were asked if they had ever been diagnosed with ADHD and, if so, whether they currently had the condition. The study also collected data on treatment types (including stimulant and nonstimulant medications), telehealth use, and demographic variables such as age, education, race, and household income.
The results showed that approximately 6.0% of U.S. adults, or an estimated 15.5 million people, had a current ADHD diagnosis. Notably, more than half of the adults with ADHD reported receiving their diagnosis during adulthood (age ≥18 years), indicating that diagnosis can occur well beyond childhood. Analysis of demographics showed significant differences between adults with ADHD and those without; adults with ADHD were more likely to be younger, with 84.5% under the age of 50. Adults with ADHD were also less likely to have completed a bachelor's degree and more likely to have a household income below the federal poverty level compared to those without ADHD. Regarding treatment, the report found that approximately one-third of adults with ADHD were untreated, and around one-third received both medication and behavioral treatment. Among those receiving pharmacological treatment, 33.4% used stimulant medications, and 71.5% of these individuals reported difficulties in getting their prescriptions filled due to medication unavailability, reflecting recent stimulant shortages in the United States. Additionally, nearly half of adults with ADHD had used telehealth services for ADHD-related care, including obtaining prescriptions and receiving counseling or therapy.
The discussion emphasizes the public health implications of these findings. ADHD is often diagnosed late, with many individuals not receiving a diagnosis until adulthood, which underscores the need for improved awareness and early identification of ADHD symptoms across the life course. Moreover, the high prevalence of untreated ADHD and the barriers to accessing stimulant medications reveal significant gaps in the healthcare system's ability to support adults with ADHD. These gaps can contribute to poorer outcomes, such as increased risk of injury, substance use, and social impairment. The report also highlights the role of telehealth, which became more prominent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telehealth appears to provide a viable solution for expanding access to ADHD diagnosis and treatment, though challenges remain regarding the quality of care and potential for misuse. The authors suggest that improved clinical care guidelines for adults with ADHD could help reduce delays in diagnosis and treatment access, thus improving long-term outcomes for affected individuals.
In conclusion, the study provides a comprehensive view of the prevalence, treatment, and telehealth use for ADHD among adults in the U.S. These data are crucial for guiding clinical care and shaping policies related to medication access and telehealth services. The findings underscore the importance of ensuring an adequate supply of stimulant medications and reducing barriers to ADHD care, ultimately enhancing the quality of life for adults with this condition. The good news is that many adults with ADHD are being diagnosed and treated. It is, however, concerning that many are not treated and that many of those treated with stimulants were impacted by the stimulant shortage.
For more details, see: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7340a1.htm
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)
