Prevalence and Risk Factors Associated With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder Among US Black Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".