Temporal Trends in the Prevalence and Incidence of Diagnosed ADHD in Children and Young Adults between 1999 and 2012 in Canada: A Data Linkage Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractObjective:There is a need for the routine monitoring of treated attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for timely policy making. The objective is to report and assess over a decade the prevalence and incidence of diagnosed ADHD in Canada.Methods:Administrative linked patient data from the provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, and Nova Scotia were obtained from the same sources as the Canadian Chronic Diseases Surveillance Systems to assess the prevalence and incidence of a primary physician diagnosis of ADHD (ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes: 314, F90.x) for consultations in outpatient and inpatient settings (Med-Echo in Quebec, the Canadian Institute of Health Information Discharge Abstract Database in the 3 other provinces, plus the Ontario Mental Health Reporting System). Dates of service, diagnosis, and physician specialty were retained. The estimates were presented in yearly brackets between 1999-2000 and 2011-2012 by age and sex groups.Results:The prevalence of ADHD between 1999 and 2012 increased in all provinces and for all groups. The prevalence was approximately 3 times higher in boys than in girls, and the highest prevalence was observed in the 10- to 14-year age group. The incidence increased between 1999 and 2012 in Manitoba, Quebec, and Nova Scotia but remained stable in Ontario. Incident cases were more frequently diagnosed by general practitioners followed by either psychiatrists or paediatricians depending on the province.Conclusion:The prevalence and incidence of diagnosed ADHD did not increase similarly across all provinces in Canada between 1999 and 2012. Over half of cases were diagnosed by a general practitioner. RésuméObjectif:Il existe un besoin de surveillance courante du trouble de déficit de l’attention avec hyperactivité (TDAH) traité pour l’élaboration ponctuelle des politiques. L’objectif est de signaler et d’évaluer sur une décennie la prévalence et l’incidence du TDAH traité au Canada.Méthodes:Les données administratives couplées des patients des provinces du Manitoba, de l’Ontario, du Québec et de la Nouvelle-Écosse ont été obtenues des mêmes sources que le Système national de surveillance des maladies chroniques, afin d’évaluer la prévalence et l’incidence d’un diagnostic de TDAH par un médecin des soins de première ligne (codes de la CIM-9 et de la CIM-10: 314, F90.x) pour des consultations en contexte ambulatoire et en milieu hospitalier (Med-Écho au Québec, la Base de données sur les congés des patients de l’Institut canadien d’information sur la santé dans les 3 autres provinces, plus le Système d’information ontarien sur la santé mentale). Les données sur les services, le diagnostic, et la spécialité du médecin ont été retenues. Les estimations ont été présentées en tranches annuelles entre 1999-2000 et 2011-2012 selon les groupes d’âge et de sexe.Résultats:La prévalence du TDAH entre 1999 et 2012 a augmenté dans toutes les provinces et pour tous les groupes. La prévalence était approximativement 3 fois plus élevée chez les garçons que chez les filles, et la prévalence la plus élevée s’observait dans le groupe des 10 à 14 ans. L’incidence s’est accrue entre 1999 et 2012 au Manitoba, au Québec et en Nouvelle-Écosse mais est demeurée stable en Ontario. Les cas incidents étaient plus fréquemment diagnostiqués par des omnipraticiens, suivis des psychiatres ou des pédiatres, selon la province.Conclusion:La prévalence et l’incidence du TDAH diagnostiqué n’ont pas augmenté de manière semblable dans toutes les provinces du Canada entre 1999 et 2012. Plus de la moitié des cas a été diagnostiquée par un omnipraticien.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".