TY - JOUR
T1 - Addressing Discrepancies Between ADHD Prevalence and Case Identification Estimates Among U.S. Children Utilizing NSCH 2007-2012
AU - Song, Min Kyoung
AU - Dieckmann, Nathan F.
AU - Nigg, Joel T.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© The Author(s) 2018.
PY - 2019/12/1
Y1 - 2019/12/1
N2 - Objective: Among U.S. children, ADHD epidemiological estimates (3%-5%) vary significantly from case identification rates (over 11%), leading to confusion about true incidence and prevalence. We investigated the extent to which this discrepancy could be resolved by definitional issues through reexamining the most cited U.S. survey of case identification, the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). Method: Using NSCH 2007/2008 and 2011/2012, we stratified identification of ADHD by current status, severity, psychiatric comorbidity, and ADHD medication usage. Using those criteria, definitional strength was coded into “Definite,” “Probable,” “Doubtful,” and “No.” Results: “Definite” ADHD in caseness in 2007/2008 was 4.04%, increasing to 5.49% in 2011/2012, roughly corresponding to epidemiological estimates. “Definite” ADHD was the primary contributor to an overall increase in caseness over that period. Conclusion: This analysis strengthens understanding of discrepancies in estimated ADHD rates. When low confidence identification is considered false positives, ADHD case identification rates match epidemiological estimates more closely.
AB - Objective: Among U.S. children, ADHD epidemiological estimates (3%-5%) vary significantly from case identification rates (over 11%), leading to confusion about true incidence and prevalence. We investigated the extent to which this discrepancy could be resolved by definitional issues through reexamining the most cited U.S. survey of case identification, the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH). Method: Using NSCH 2007/2008 and 2011/2012, we stratified identification of ADHD by current status, severity, psychiatric comorbidity, and ADHD medication usage. Using those criteria, definitional strength was coded into “Definite,” “Probable,” “Doubtful,” and “No.” Results: “Definite” ADHD in caseness in 2007/2008 was 4.04%, increasing to 5.49% in 2011/2012, roughly corresponding to epidemiological estimates. “Definite” ADHD was the primary contributor to an overall increase in caseness over that period. Conclusion: This analysis strengthens understanding of discrepancies in estimated ADHD rates. When low confidence identification is considered false positives, ADHD case identification rates match epidemiological estimates more closely.
KW - ADHD
KW - NSCH
KW - and case identification
KW - prevalence
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072234094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072234094&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/1087054718799930
DO - 10.1177/1087054718799930
M3 - Article
C2 - 30264639
AN - SCOPUS:85072234094
SN - 1087-0547
VL - 23
SP - 1691
EP - 1702
JO - Journal of attention disorders
JF - Journal of attention disorders
IS - 14
ER -