Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Manitoba Children: Medical Diagnosis and Psychostimulant Treatment Rates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe physicians' diagnosis rates for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for children in the province of Manitoba and to describe the rate of psychostimulant medication use by these children. METHODS: This descriptive study reviewed the computerized administrative records of physician visits and prescriptions dispensed to examine a population-based, cross-sectional cohort of children diagnosed with ADHD or prescribed stimulant medication, or both. We found 4787 children with a diagnosis of ADHD over a 24-month period or a prescription for stimulant medication over a 12-month period, or both. Rates were calculated by age, sex, region of residence, neighbourhood income level, and physician specialty. RESULTS: Among Manitoba children, 1.52% received a medical diagnosis of ADHD and 0.89% received stimulant medication. Regionally, diagnosis rates for ADHD varied almost 4-fold, and over 8-fold for medications prescribed. Urban areas had higher rates than did rural areas, regardless of physician specialty. Diagnosis and prescription rates varied according to physician specialty, with the highest rates found among pediatricians. An income gradient was evident in rural areas, with rates of ADHD diagnosis and medication prescribed increasing with increased neighbourhood income level. CONCLUSIONS: The pattern of regional variation found in this study suggests that the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD in Manitoba are influenced strongly by the practice styles of local physicians.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".