Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Among US Black Individuals
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: As stated in the DSM-5, it is generally reported that the prevalence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is lower among Black individuals compared with the general population. However, Black individuals living in countries where they are considered a minority population group (eg, in Northern America and Europe) are underrepresented in studies evaluating ADHD. Objective: To estimate the pooled prevalence of ADHD and identify associated risk factors among US Black individuals. Data Sources: This systematic review and meta-analysis identified peer-reviewed studies published until October 18, 2019, using the APA PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, ERIC, and Education Source databases. Study Selection: Eligible trials were published in French or English, had empirical data on the prevalence of ADHD in samples or subsamples of Black people, and were conducted in countries with Black minority populations. All studies were assessed and passed quality evaluation. Data Extraction and Synthesis: The PRISMA guideline was used for extracting and reporting data. Random-effects meta-analyses were generated to estimate the prevalence of ADHD among Black individuals using the metafor package in R. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence and risk factors associated with ADHD among Black individuals were identified. Results: A total of 24 independent samples and subsamples from 21 studies published between 1979 and 2020 (154 818 Black participants) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. All included studies were conducted in the US. Two studies were conducted assessing adults (aged 18 years or older), 8 assessing children (0-12 years), 1 assessing adolescents (aged 13-17 years), and 13 assessing both children and adolescents. The pooled prevalence of ADHD was 14.54% (95% CI, 10.64%-19.56%). In a narrative review of the studies in this analysis, some studies found risk factors associated with ADHD, such as sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, race, and socioeconomic status), familial factors, environmental factors, and risk behaviors, but the data did not permit a moderation analysis to assess these findings in this study. Conclusions and Relevance: Contrary to what is stated in the DSM-5, the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that Black individuals are at higher risk for ADHD diagnoses than the general US population. These results highlight a need to increase ADHD assessment and monitoring among Black individuals from different social backgrounds. They also higlight the importance of establishing accurate diagnoses and culturally appropriate care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,036 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».