Clinical and social factors associated with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder medication use: population-based longitudinal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of longitudinal psychiatric comorbidity, parenting and social characteristics on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) medication use is still poorly understood. AIMS: To assess the baseline and longitudinal influences of behavioural and environmental factors on ADHD medication use. METHOD: Survival regressions with time-dependent covariates were used to model data from a population-based longitudinal birth cohort. The sample (n = 1920) was assessed from age 5 months to 10 years. Measures of children's psychiatric symptoms, parenting practices and social characteristics available at baseline and during follow-up were used to identify individual and family-level features associated with subsequent use of ADHD medication. RESULTS: Use of ADHD medication ranged from 0.2 to 8.6% between ages 3.5 to 10 years. Hyperactivity-inattention was the strongest predictor of medication use (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.75, 95% CI 2.35-3.22). Among all social variables examined, low maternal education increased the likelihood of medication use (HR = 2.09, 95% CI 1.38-3.18) whereas immigrant status lowered this likelihood (HR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Beyond ADHD symptoms, the likelihood of receiving ADHD medication is predicted by social variables and not by psychiatric comorbidity or by parenting. This emphasises the need to improve global interventions by offering the same therapeutic opportunities (including medication) as those received by the rest of the population to some subgroups (i.e. immigrants) and by diminishing possible unnecessary prescriptions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".