Prevalence Trends and Patterns of Perinatal <scp>ADHD</scp> Stimulant Medication Use in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Given the increase in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnoses and stimulant medication use among female adults, this study describes the prevalence trends of perinatal ADHD stimulant medication use in British Columbia, Canada, along with characteristics and patterns of use. METHODS: Using linked population-based administrative data, we included all pregnant people with deliveries between January 2000 and December 2021. ADHD stimulant medication use was defined as filled prescriptions for dextro-/amphetamine, methylphenidate, or lisdexamfetamine. Prevalence trends were examined by medication type and age group. Characteristics were compared between those with and without prenatal stimulant medication dispensations. Patterns of use and discontinuation were assessed from 1 year preconception to 1 year postpartum. RESULTS: Our cohort included 899,679 pregnancies. Prenatal ADHD stimulant medication use increased by 3.9 users per 1000 pregnancies (from 0.4 to 4.3/1000), primarily driven by dextro-/amphetamine. Medication use increased among all age groups, but was highest among pregnant people under 20 years old. Pregnant people taking stimulant medications were more likely to be nulliparous and lower in income, have hypertension and higher BMI, smoke during pregnancy, use other psychotropic medications, and deliver by cesarean section. Among those who used stimulant medications within 1 year preconception, 77% discontinued treatment before or during pregnancy. While use increased again within 12 months postpartum, it remained 45% lower than preconception levels. CONCLUSION: The 11-fold increase in ADHD stimulant medication use during pregnancy and the high rate of discontinuation highlight the need for more research on the risks and benefits of medication for parent and child health.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".