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.
March 7, 2025
The National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) is conducted annually by the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The NHIS is done primarily through face-to-face computer-assisted interviews in the homes of respondents. But telephone interviews are substituted on request, or where travel distances make in-home visits impractical.
For each interviewed family, only one sample child is randomly selected by a computer program.
The total number of households with a child or adolescent aged 3-17 for the years 2018 through 2021 was 26,422.
Based on responses from family members, 9.5% of the children and adolescents randomly surveyed throughout the United States had ADHD.
This proportion varied significantly based on age, rising from 1.5% for ages 3-5 to 9.6% for ages 6-11 and to 13.4% for ages 12-17.
There was an almost two-to-one gap between the 12.4% prevalence among males and the 6.6% prevalence among females.
There was significant variation by race/ethnicity. While rates among non-Hispanic whites (11.1%) and non-Hispanic blacks (10.5%) did not differ significantly, these two groups differed significantly from Hispanics (7.2%) and Others (6.6%).
There were no significant variations in ADHD prevalence based on highest education level of family members.
But family income had a significant relationship with ADHD prevalence, especially at lower incomes. For family incomes under the poverty line, the prevalence was 12.7%. That dropped to 10.3% for family incomes above the poverty level but less than twice that level. For all others it dropped further to about 8.5%. Although that might seem like poverty causes ADHD, we cannot draw that conclusion. Other data indicate that adults with ADHD have lower incomes. That would lead to more ADHD in kids from lower income families.
There was also significant geographic variation in reported prevalence rates. It was highest in the South, at 11.3%, then the Midwest at 10%, the Northeast at 9.1%, with a jump down to 6.9% in the West.
Overall ADHD prevalence did not vary significantly by year over the four years covered by this study.
This study highlights a consistently high prevalence of developmental disabilities among U.S. children and adolescents, with notable increases in other developmental delays and co-occurring learning and intellectual disabilities from 2018 to 2021. While the overall prevalence remained stable, these findings emphasize the need for continued research into potential risk factors and targeted interventions to address developmental challenges in youth.
It is also important to note that this study assessed the prevalence of ADHD being diagnosed by healthcare professionals. Due to variations in healthcare accessibility across the country, the true prevalence of ADHD may differ still.
...
Qian Li, Yanmei Li, Juan Zheng, Xiaofang Yan, Jitian Huang, Yingxia Xu, Xia Zeng, Tianran Shen, Xiaohui Xing, Qingsong Chen, and Wenhan Yang, “Prevalence and trends of developmental disabilities among US children and adolescents aged 3 to 17 years, 2018–2021,” Scientific Reports (2023) 13: 17254, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-44472-1.
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental condition that is typically diagnosed in childhood but can persist into adulthood. Its symptoms include inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity, and it can significantly affect daily life, academic achievement, and professional success. As scientific understanding of the condition continues to evolve, new research is revealing more insights into the prevalence, comorbidity, treatment, and physiological aspects of ADHD in adults. Here's a roundup of some recent findings:
A recent study assessing the prevalence of treatment for ADHD among US college students found that the location of mental health care significantly affects treatment outcomes. Specifically, students receiving mental healthcare on campus were less likely to receive any medication or therapy for ADHD, suggesting the need to evaluate the quality of mental health services available on college campuses and their effectiveness in treating ADHD.
Another study found a correlation between ADHD and the l-Arginine/Nitric oxide (Arg/NO) pathway, a physiological process linked to dopamine release and cardiovascular functioning. The study found that adults with ADHD who were not treated with methylphenidate (a common ADHD medication) showed variations in the Arg/NO pathway. This could have implications for monitoring potential cardiovascular side effects of ADHD medications, as well as for understanding the biochemical changes that occur in ADHD.
ADHD and chronic pain appear to be related, according to a comparative study of clinical and general population samples. Particularly in females with ADHD, the prevalence of chronic and multisite pain was found to be high. This calls for longitudinal studies to understand the complex sex differences of comorbid chronic pain and ADHD in adolescents and the potential impacts of stimulant use on pain.
Finally, a study investigated the comorbidity of ADHD and bipolar disorder (BD) and its potential link to violent behavior. The research revealed a positive effect of ADHD symptoms on violence tendency and aggression scores. Moreover, male gender and young age were also found to have significant positive effects on violence and aggression scores, suggesting an association between these disorders and violent behavior.
Using Statistics New Zealand’s Integrated Data Infrastructure (IDI), a large database of linked de-identified administrative and survey data about people and households, a local study team examined a three-year birth cohort (mid-1992 through mid-1995) totaling 149,076 persons.
The team assessed the presence of ADHD within this cohort through diagnosis codes and inference from medication dispensing, where there was at least one code relating to an ADHD diagnosis in the medication datasets. This subgroup consisted of 3,975 persons.
Next, they related this information to criminal justice system interactions of increasing severity, starting with police proceedings, and continuing with court charges, court convictions, and incarcerations. These interactions were tracked during an eight-year period from participants’ 17th birthday through their 25th birthday.
In this same period the team also tracked types of offenses: against people; against property; against organizations, government, and community; and violent offenses.
In all cases, the study team adjusted for gender, ethnicity, deprivation, and area of residence as potential confounders.
With these adjustments, young adults with ADHD were over twice as likely as their typically developing peers to be proceeded against by police, to be charged with an offense, and to be convicted. They were almost five times as likely to be incarcerated.
With the same adjustments, young adults with ADHD were over twice as likely as their typically developing peers to be convicted of offenses against organizations, government, and community. They were almost three times as likely to be convicted of crimes against persons, and over three and a half times more likely to be convicted of either violent offenses or offenses against property.
The authors noted, “The greater effect size for incarceration observed in our study may be due to the lack of control for comorbid conditions such as CD [conduct disorder], which are known criminogenic risk factors.”
They also noted, “The sharp increase in the risk of incarceration observed may also signal differences in the NZ justice system’s approach to ADHD, which may be less responsive to the condition than other nations, particularly the steps in the justice system between conviction and sentence. This would suggest that the UNCRPD [United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] obligations of equal recognition before the law and the elimination of discrimination on the basis of disability are not being met for individuals with ADHD in NZ.”
They concluded, “Our findings revealed that not only were individuals with ADHD overrepresented at all stages of the CJS [criminal justice system] and offense types examined, there was also a pattern of increasing risk for CJS interactions as these individuals moved through the system. These results highlight the importance of early identification and responsivity to ADHD within the CJS and suggest that the NZ justice system may require changes to both of these areas to ensure that young individuals with ADHD receive equitable access to, and treatment within, the CJS.”
An international team of researchers conducted a comprehensive search of the peer-reviewed literature to perform a meta-analysis, with three aims:
1) assess the global prevalence of adult ADHD
2) explore possible associated factors
3) estimate the 2020 global population of persons with adult ADHD.
In doing so, they distinguished between studies requiring childhood-onset of ADHD to validate adult ADHD (persistent adult ADHD) and studies that make no such requirement and examine ADHD symptoms in adults regardless of previous childhood diagnosis (symptomatic adult ADHD).
The search yielded forty articles covering thirty countries. Twenty reported prevalence data on symptomatic adult ADHD, 19 on persistent adult ADHD, and one on both. Thirty-five studies were published in the last decade (2010-2019). Thirty-one included both urban and rural populations. Thirty-five had a quality score of six or above (out of ten). Twenty-five had sample sizes greater than a thousand.
Because the prevalence of ADHD is age-dependent, and different countries vary widely in the age structure of their populations, the authors adjusted country results for their structures. This allowed for meaningful global estimates of the prevalence of adult ADHD.
Twenty studies covering a total of 107,282 participants reported the prevalence of persistent adult ADHD. The pooled prevalence was 4.6%. After adjustment for the global population structure, the pooled prevalence was 2.6%, equivalent to roughly 140 million cases globally.
Twenty-one studies covering 50,098 participants reported on the prevalence of symptomatic adult ADHD. The pooled prevalence was 8.8%. After adjustment for the global population structure, the pooled prevalence was 6.7%, equivalent to roughly 366 million cases globally.
For persistent adult ADHD, adjusted prevalence declined steeply from 5% among 18- to 24-year-olds to 0.8% among those 60 and older.
For symptomatic adult ADHD, adjusted prevalence declined less steeply from 9% among 18- to 24-year-olds to 4.5% among that 60 and older.
In each case, subgroup analyses found no significant differences based on sex, urban or rural setting, diagnostic tool, DSM version, or investigation period, although pooled prevalence estimates of persistent adult ADHD from 2010 onward were almost twice the previous pooled prevalence estimates. For symptomatic adult ADHD, however, differences between WHO (World Health Organization) regions were highly significant, although the outliers(Southeast Asia at 25% and Eastern Mediterranean at 16%) were based on small samples(304 and 748 respectively).
In both cases, between-study heterogeneity was very high (over 97%). The authors noted, "the age of interviewed participants in the included studies was not unified, ranging from young adults to the elderly. Given the fact that the prevalence of adult ADHD decreases with advancing age, as revealed in previous investigations and our meta-regression, it is not surprising to observe such a diversity in the reported prevalence, and the considerable heterogeneity across included studies could not be fully ruled out by a priori selected variables, including diagnostic tool, DSM version, sex, setting, investigation period, WHO region, and WB [World Bank] region. The effects of other potential correlates of adult ADHD, such as ethnicity, were not able to be addressed due to the lack of sufficient information."
In both cases, there was also evidence of publication bias. The authors stated, "we did not try to eliminate publication bias in our analyses, because we deemed that an observed prevalence of adult ADHD that substantially differed from previous estimates was likely to have been published."
Stimulant medications have long been considered the default first-line treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Clinical guidelines, prescribing practices, and public narratives all reinforce the idea that stimulants should be tried first, with non-stimulants reserved for cases where stimulants fail or are poorly tolerated.
I recently partnered with leading ADHD researcher Jeffrey Newcorn for a Nature Mental Health commentary on the subject. We argue that this hierarchy deserves reexamination. It is important to note that our position is not anti-stimulant. Rather, we call into question whether the evidence truly supports treating non-stimulants as secondary options, and we propose that both classes should be considered equal first-line treatments.
Stimulants have earned their reputation as the go-to drug of choice for ADHD. They are among the most effective medications in psychiatry, reliably reducing core ADHD symptoms and improving daily functioning when properly titrated and monitored. However, when stimulant and non-stimulant medications are compared more closely, the gap between them appears smaller than commonly assumed.
Meta-analyses often report slightly higher average response rates for stimulants, but head-to-head trials where patients are directly randomized to one medication versus another frequently find no statistically significant differences in symptom improvement or tolerability. Network meta-analyses similarly show that while some stimulant formulations have modest advantages, these differences are small and inconsistent, particularly in adults.
When translated into clinical terms, the advantage of stimulants becomes even more modest. Based on existing data, approximately eight patients would need to be treated with a stimulant rather than a non-stimulant for one additional person to experience a meaningful benefit. This corresponds to only a 56% probability that a given patient will respond better to a stimulant than to a non-stimulant. This difference is not what we would refer to as “clinically significant.”
One reason non-stimulants may appear less effective is the way efficacy is typically reported. Most comparisons rely on standardized mean differences, a method of averages that may mask heterogeneity of treatment effects. In reality, ADHD medications do not work uniformly across patients.
For example, evidence suggests that response to some non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine, is bimodal: this means that many patients respond extremely well, while others respond poorly, with few in between. When this happens, average effect sizes can obscure the fact that a substantial subgroup benefits just as much as they would from a stimulant. In other words, non-stimulants are not necessarily less effective across the board, but that they are simply different in who they help.
In our commentary, we also highlight structural issues in ADHD research. Stimulant trials are particularly vulnerable to unblinding, as their immediate and observable physiological effects can reveal treatment assignment, potentially inflating perceived efficacy. Non-stimulants, with slower onset and subtler effects, are less prone to this bias.
Additionally, many randomized trials exclude patients with common psychiatric comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, or substance-use disorders. Using co-diagnoses as exclusion criteria for clinical trials on ADHD medications is nonviable when considering the large number of ADHD patients who also have other diagnoses. Real-world data suggest that a large proportion of individuals with ADHD would not qualify for typical trials, limiting how well results generalize to everyday clinical practice.
Standard evaluations of medication tolerability focus on side effects experienced by patients, but this narrow lens misses broader societal consequences. Stimulants are Schedule II controlled substances, which introduces logistical barriers, regulatory burdens, supply vulnerabilities, and administrative strain for both patients and clinicians.
When used as directed, stimulant medications do not increase risk of substance-use disorders (and, in fact, tend to reduce these rates); however, as ADHD awareness has spread and stimulants are more widely prescribed, non-medical use of prescription stimulants has become more widespread, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Non-stimulants do not carry these risks.
Non-stimulants are not without drawbacks themselves, however. They typically take longer to work and have higher non-response rates, making them less suitable in situations where rapid results are essential. These limitations, however, do not justify relegating them to second-line status across the board.
This is a call for abandoning a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, future guidelines should present stimulant and non-stimulant medications as equally valid starting points, clearly outlining trade-offs related to onset, efficacy, misuse risk, and practical burden.
The evidence already supports this shift. The remaining challenge is aligning clinical practice and policy with what the data, and patient-centered care, are increasingly telling us.
Today, most treatment guidelines recommend starting ADHD treatment with stimulant medications. These medicines often work quickly and can be very effective, but they do not help every child, and they can have bothersome side effects, such as appetite loss, sleep problems, or mood changes. Families also worry about long-term effects, the possibility of misuse or abuse, as well as the recent nationwide stimulant shortages. Non-stimulant medications are available, but they are usually used only after stimulants have not been effective.
This stimulant-first approach means that many patients who would respond well to a non-stimulant will end up on a stimulant medication anyway. This study addresses this issue by testing two different ways of starting medication treatment for school-age children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We want to know whether beginning with a non-stimulant medicine can work as well as the “stimulant-first” approach, which is currently used by most prescribers.
From this study, we hope to learn:
Our goal is to give families and clinicians clear, practical evidence to support a truly shared decision: “Given this specific child, should we start with a stimulant or a non-stimulant?”
Who will be in the study?
We will enroll about 1,000 children and adolescents, ages 6 to 16, who:
We will include children with common co-occurring conditions (such as anxiety, depression, learning or developmental disorders) so that the results reflect the “real-world” children seen in clinics, not just highly selected research volunteers.
How will the treatments be assigned?
This is a randomized comparative effectiveness trial, which means:
Parents and clinicians will know which type of medicine the child is taking, as in usual care. However, the experts who rate how much each child has improved using our main outcome measure will not be told which treatment strategy the child received. This helps keep their ratings unbiased.
What will participants be asked to do?
Each family will be followed for 12 months. We will collect information at:
At these times:
We will also track:
Data will be entered into a secure, HIPAA-compliant research database. Study staff at each site will work closely with families to make participation as convenient as possible, including offering flexible visit schedules and electronic options for completing forms when feasible.
How will we analyze the results?
Using standard statistical methods, we will:
All analyses will follow the “intention-to-treat” principle, meaning we compare children based on the strategy they were originally assigned to, even if their medication is later changed. This mirrors real-world decision-making: once you choose a starting strategy, what tends to happen over time?
Why is this study necessary now?
This study addresses a critical, timely gap in ADHD care:
In short, this study is needed now to move ADHD medication decisions beyond “one-size-fits-all.” By rigorously comparing stimulant-first and non-stimulant-first strategies in real-world settings, and by focusing on what matters most to children and families overall functioning, side effects, and long-term well-being, we aim to give patients, parents, and clinicians the information they need to choose the best starting treatment for each child.
This project was conceived by Professor Stephen V. Faraone, PhD (SUNY Upstate Medical University, Department of Psychiatry, Syracuse, NY) and Professor Jeffrey H. Newcorn, MD (Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Psychiatry, New York, NY). It will be conducted at nine sites across the USA.
EBI-ADHD:
If you live with ADHD, treat ADHD, or write about ADHD, you’ve probably run into the same problem: there’s a ton of research on treatments, but it’s scattered across hundreds of papers that don’t talk to each other. The EBI-ADHD website fixes that.
EBI-ADHD (Evidence-Based Interventions for ADHD) is a free, interactive platform that pulls together the best available research on how ADHD treatments work and how safe they are. It’s built for clinicians, people with ADHD and their families, and guideline developers who need clear, comparable information rather than a pile of PDFs. EBI-ADHD Database The site is powered by 200+ meta-analyses covering 50,000+ participants and more than 30 different interventions. These include medications, psychological therapies, brain-stimulation approaches, and lifestyle or “complementary” options.
The heart of the site is an interactive dashboard. You can:
The dashboard then shows an evidence matrix: a table where each cell is a specific treatment–outcome–time-point combination. Each cell tells you two things at a glance:
Clicking a cell opens more detail: effect sizes, the underlying meta-analysis, and how the certainty rating was decided.
EBI-ADHD is not just a curated list of papers. It’s built on a formal umbrella review of ADHD interventions, published in The BMJ in 2025. That review re-analyzed 221 meta-analyses using a standardized statistical pipeline and rating system.
The platform was co-created with 100+ clinicians and 100+ people with lived ADHD experience from around 30 countries and follows the broader U-REACH framework for turning complex evidence into accessible digital tools.
Why it Matters
ADHD is one of the most studied conditions in mental health, yet decisions in everyday practice are still often driven by habit, marketing, or selective reading of the literature. EBI-ADHD offers something different: a transparent, continuously updated map of what we actually know about ADHD treatments and how sure we are about it.
In short, it’s a tool to move conversations about ADHD care from “I heard this works” to “Here’s what the best current evidence shows, and let’s decide together what matters most for you.”
_logo%201.svg)
