ADHD Treatment in Primary Care: Demographic Factors, Medication Trends, and Treatment Predictors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence and characteristics of youth with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in Ontario, Canada, and to determine the predictors of psychotropic medication prescriptions in youth with ADHD. METHOD: This is a cross-sectional retrospective chart abstraction of more than 250 000 medical records from youth aged 1 to 24 years in a large geographical region in Ontario, Canada, linked to population-based health administrative data. A total of 10 000 charts were randomly selected and manually reviewed using predetermined criteria for ADHD and comorbidities. Prevalence, comorbidities, demographic indicators, and health service utilization characteristics were calculated. Predictors of treatment characteristics were determined using logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: The prevalence of ADHD was 5.4% (7.9% males, 2.7% females). Youth with ADHD had significant psychiatric comorbidities. The majority (70.0%) of ADHD patients received prescriptions for stimulant or nonstimulant ADHD medication. Antipsychotic prescriptions were provided to 11.9% of ADHD patients versus 0.9% of patients without ADHD. Antidepressant prescriptions were provided to 19.8% versus 5.4% of patients with and without ADHD, respectively. Predictors of antidepressant prescriptions were increasing age (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07 to 1.21), psychiatric consultation (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.16 to 3.58), and diagnoses of both anxiety and depression (OR, 18.4; 95% CI, 8.03 to 42.1), whereas the only predictor of antipsychotic prescriptions was psychiatric consultation (OR, 3.85; 95% CI, 2.11 to 7.02). CONCLUSIONS: Youth with ADHD have more psychiatric comorbidities than youth without ADHD. The majority of youth with ADHD received stimulant medications, and a significant number received additional psychotropic medications, with psychiatric consultation predicting medication use.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".