Cookie Preferences
By clicking, you agree to store cookies on your device to enhance navigation, analyze usage, and support marketing. More Info
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
A recent Wall Street Journal article raised alarms by concluding that many children who start medication for ADHD will later end up on several psychiatric drugs. It’s an emotional topic that will make many parents, teachers, and even doctors worry: “Are we putting kids on a conveyor belt of medications?”
The article seeks to shine a light on the use of more than one psychiatric medication for children with ADHD. My biggest worry about the article is that it presents itself as a scientific study because they analyzed a database. It is not a scientific study. It is a journalistic investigation that does not meet the standards of a scientific report..
The WJS brings attention to several issues that parents and prescribers should think about. It documents that some kids with ADHD are on more than one psychiatric medication, and some are receiving drugs like antipsychotics, which have serious side effects. Is that appropriate? Access to good therapy, careful evaluation, and follow-up care can be lacking, especially for low-income families. Can that be improved? On that level, the article is doing something valuable: it’s shining a spotlight on potential problems.
It is, of course, fine for a journalist to raise questions, but it is not OK for them to pretend that they’ve done a scientific investigation that proves anything. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
Journalism vs. Science: Why Peer Review Matters
Journalists can get big datasets, hire data journalists, and present numbers that look scientific. But consider the differences between Journalism and Science. These types of articles are usually checked by editors and fact-checkers. Their main goals are:
Is this fact basically correct?
Are we being fair?
Are we avoiding legal problems?
But editors are not qualified to evaluate scientific data analysis methods. Scientific reports are evaluated by experts who are not part of the project. They ask tough questions like:
Exactly how did you define ADHD?
How did you handle missing data?
Did you address confounding?
Did you confuse correlation with causation?
If the authors of the study cannot address these and other technical issues, the paper is rejected.
The WSJ article has the veneer of science but lacks its methodology.
Correlation vs. Causation: A Classic Trap
The article’s storyline goes something like this: A kid starts ADHD medication. She has additional problems or side effects caused by the ADHD medications. Because of that, the prescriber adds more drugs. That leads to the patient being put on several drugs. Although it is true that some ADHD youth are on multiple drugs, the WSJ is wrong to conclude that the medications for ADHD cause this to occur. That simply confuses correlation with causation, which only the most naïve scientist would do.
In science, this problem is called confounding. It means other factors (like how severe or complex a child’s condition is) explain the results, not just the thing we’re focused on (medication for ADHD).
The WSJ analyzed a database of prescriptions. They did not survey the prescribers who made the prescriptions of the patients who received them. So they cannot conclude that ADHD medication caused the later prescriptions, or that the later medications were unnecessary or inappropriate.
Other explanations are very likely. It has been well documented that youth with ADHD are at high risk for developing other disorders such as anxiety, depression, and substance use. The kids in the WSJ database might have developed these disorders and needed several medications. A peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal would be expected to adjust for other diagnoses. If that is not possible, as it is in the case of the WSJ’s database, a journal would not allow the author to make strong conclusions about cause-and-effect.
Powerful Stories Don’t Always Mean Typical Stories
The article includes emotional accounts of children who seemed harmed by being put on multiple psychiatric drugs. Strong, emotional stories can make rare events feel common. They also frighten parents and patients, which might lead some to decline appropriate care.
These stories matter. They remind us that each data point is a real person. But these stories are the weakest form of data. They can raise important questions and lead scientists to design definitive studies, but we cannot use them to draw conclusions about the experiences of other patients. These stories serve as a warning about the importance of finding a qualified provider, not as against the use of multiple medications. That decision should be made by the parent or adult patient based on an informed discussion with the prescriber.
Many children and adults with ADHD benefit from multiple medications. The WSJ does not tell those stories, which creates an unbalanced and misleading presentation.
Newspapers frequently publish stories that send the message: “Beware! Doctors are practicing medicine in a way that will harm you and your family.” They then use case studies to prove their point. The title of the article is, itself, emotional clickbait designed to get more readers and advertising revenue. Don’t be confused by such journalistic trickery.
What Should We Conclude?
Here’s a balanced way to read the article. It is true that some patients are prescribed more than one medication for mental health problems. But the article does not tell us whether this prescribing practice is or is not warranted for most patients. I agree that the use of antipsychotic medications needs careful justification and close monitoring. I also agree that patients on multiple medications should be monitored closely to see if some of the medications can be eliminated. Many prescribers do exactly that, but the WSJ did not tell their stories.
It is not appropriate to conclude that ADHD medications typically cause combined pharmacotherapy or to suggest that combined pharmacotherapy is usually bad. The data presented by the WSJ does not adequately address these concerns. It does not prove that medications for ADHD cause dangerous medication cascades.
We have to remember that even when a journalist analyzes data, that is not the same as a peer-reviewed scientific study. Journalism pretending to be science is both bad science and bad journalism.
.png)
This New York Times article, “5 Takeaways from New Research about ADHD”, earns a poor grade for accuracy. Let’s break down their (often misleading and frequently inaccurate) claims about ADHD.
The Claim: A.D.H.D. is hard to define/ No ADHD Biomarkers exist
The Reality: The claim that ADHD is hard to define “because scientists haven’t found a single biological marker” is misleading at best. While it is true that no biomarker exists, decades of rigorous research using structured clinical interviews and standardized rating scales show that ADHD is reliably diagnosed. Decades of validation research consistently show that ADHD is indeed a biologically-based disorder. One does not need a biomarker to draw that conclusion and recent research about ADHD has not changed that conclusion.
Additionally, research has in fact confirmed that genetics do play a role in the development of ADHD and several genes associated with ADHD have been identified.
The Claim: The efficacy of medication wanes over time
The Reality: The article’s statement that medications like Adderall or Ritalin only provide short-term benefits that fade over time is wrong. It relies almost entirely on one study—the Multimodal Treatment Study of ADHD (MTA). In the MTA study, the relative advantage of medication over behavioral treatments diminished after 36 months. This was largely because many patients who had not initially been given medication stopped taking it and many who had only been treated with behavior therapy suddenly began taking medication. The MTA shows that patients frequently switched treatments. It does not overturn other data documenting that these medications are highly effective. Moreover, many longitudinal studies clearly demonstrate sustained benefits of ADHD medications in reducing core symptoms, psychiatric comorbidity, substance abuse, and serious negative outcomes, including accidents, and school dropout rates. A study of nearly 150,000 people with ADHD in Sweden concluded “Among individuals diagnosed with ADHD, medication initiation was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality, particularly for death due to unnatural causes”. The NY Times’ claim that medications lose their beneficial effects over time ignores compelling evidence to the contrary.
The Claim: Medications don’t help children with ADHD learn
The Reality: ADHD medications are proven to reliably improve attention, increase time spent on tasks, and reduce disruptive behavior, all critical factors directly linked to better academic performance.The article’s assertion that ADHD medications improve only classroom behavior and do not actually help students learn also oversimplifies and misunderstands the research evidence. While medication alone might not boost IQ or cognitive ability in a direct sense, extensive research confirms significant objective improvements in academic productivity and educational success—contrary to the claim made in the article that the medication’s effect is merely emotional or perceptual, rather than genuinely educational.
For example, a study of students with ADHD who were using medication intermittingly concluded “Individuals with ADHD had higher scores on the higher education entrance tests during periods they were taking ADHD medication vs non-medicated periods. These findings suggest that ADHD medications may help ameliorate educationally relevant outcomes in individuals with ADHD.”
The Claim: Changing a child’s environment can change his or her symptoms.
The Reality: The Times article asserts that ADHD symptoms are influenced by environmental fluctuations and thus might not have their roots in neurobiology. We have known for many years that the symptoms of ADHD fluctuate with environmental demands. The interpretation of this given by the NY Times is misleading because it confuses symptom variability with underlying causes. Many disorders with well-established biological origins are sensitive to environmental factors, yet their biology remains undisputed.
For example, hypertension is unquestionably a biologically based condition involving genetic and physiological factors. However, it is also well-known that environmental stressors, dietary
habits, and lifestyle factors can significantly worsen or improve hypertension. Similarly, asthma is biologically rooted in inflammation and airway hyper-reactivity, but environmental triggers such as allergens, pollution, or even emotional stress clearly impact symptom severity. Just as these environmental influences on hypertension or asthma do not negate their biological basis, the responsiveness of ADHD symptoms to environmental fluctuations (e.g., improvements in classroom structure, supportive home life) does not imply that ADHD lacks neurobiological roots. Rather, it underscores that ADHD, like many medical conditions, emerges from the interplay between underlying biological vulnerabilities and environmental influences.
Claim: There is no clear dividing line between those who have A.D.H.D. and those who don’t.
The Reality: This is absolutely and resoundingly false. The article’s suggestion that ADHD diagnosis is arbitrary because ADHD symptoms exist on a continuum rather than as a clear-cut, binary condition is misleading. Although it is true that ADHD symptoms—like inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity—do vary continuously across the population, the existence of this continuum does not make the diagnosis arbitrary or invalidate the disorder’s biological basis. Many well-established medical conditions show the same pattern. For instance, hypertension (high blood pressure) and hypercholesterolemia (high cholesterol) both involve measures that are continuously distributed. Blood pressure and cholesterol levels exist along a continuum, yet clear diagnostic thresholds have been carefully established through decades of clinical research. Their continuous distribution does not lead clinicians to question whether these conditions have biological origins or whether diagnosing an individual with hypertension or hypercholesterolemia is arbitrary. Rather, it underscores that clinical decisions and diagnostic thresholds are established using evidence about what levels lead to meaningful impairment or increased risk of negative health outcomes. Similarly, the diagnosis of ADHD has been meticulously defined and refined over many decades using extensive empirical research, structured clinical interviews, and validated rating scales. The diagnostic criteria developed by experts carefully delineate the point at which symptoms become severe enough to cause significant impairment in an individual’s daily functioning. Far from being arbitrary, these thresholds reflect robust scientific evidence that individuals meeting these criteria face increased risks for the serious impairments in life including accidents, suicide and premature death.
The existence of milder forms of ADHD does not undermine the validity of the diagnosis; rather, it emphasizes the clinical reality that people experience varying degrees of symptom severity.
Moreover, acknowledging variability in severity has always been a core principle in medicine. Clinicians routinely adjust treatments to meet individual patient needs. Not everyone diagnosed with hypertension receives identical medication regimens, nor does everyone with elevated cholesterol get prescribed the same intervention. Similarly, people with ADHD receive personalized treatment plans tailored to the severity of their symptoms, their specific impairments, and their individual circumstances. This personalization is not evidence of arbitrariness; it is precisely how evidence-based medicine is practiced. In sum, the continuous nature of ADHD symptoms is fully compatible with a biologically-based diagnosis that has substantial evidence for validity, and acknowledging symptom variability does not render diagnosis arbitrary or diminish its clinical importance.
In sum, readers seeking a balanced, evidence-based understanding of ADHD deserve clearer, more careful reporting. By overstating diagnostic uncertainty, selectively interpreting research about medication efficacy, and inaccurately portraying the educational benefits of medication, this article presents an overly simplistic, misleading picture of ADHD.
A Chinese research team performed two types of meta-analyses to compare the risk of suicide for ADHD patients taking ADHD medication as opposed to those not taking medication.
The first type of meta-analysis combined six large population studies with a total of over 4.7 million participants. These were located on three continents - Europe, Asia, and North America - and more specifically Sweden, England, Taiwan, and the United States.
The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be about a quarter less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p = 0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). There were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications produced divergent outcomes. A meta-analysis of four population studies covering almost 900,000 individuals found stimulant medications to be associated with a 28 percent reduced risk of suicide. On the other hand, a meta-analysis of three studies with over 62,000 individuals found no significant difference in suicide risk for non-stimulant medications. The benefit, therefore, seems limited to stimulant medication.
The second type of meta-analysis combined three within-individual studies with over 3.9 million persons in the United States, China, and Sweden. The risk of suicide among those taking medication was found to be almost a third less than for unmediated individuals, though the results were again barely significant at the 95 percent confidence level (p =0.49, just a sliver below the p = 0.5 cutoff point). Once again, there were no significant differences between males and females, except that looking only at males or females reduced the sample size and made results non-significant.
Differentiating between patients receiving stimulant and non-stimulant medications once again produced divergent outcomes. Meta-analysis of the same three studies found a 25 percent reduced risk of suicide among those taking stimulant medications. But as in the population studies, a meta-analysis of two studies with over 3.9 million persons found no reduction in risk among those taking non-stimulant medications.
A further meta-analysis of two studies with 3.9 million persons found no reduction in suicide risk among persons taking ADHD medications for 90 days or less, "revealing the importance of duration and adherence to medication in all individuals prescribed stimulants for ADHD."
The authors concluded, "exposure to non-stimulants is not associated with a higher risk of suicide attempts. However, a lower risk of suicide attempts was observed for stimulant drugs. However, the results must be interpreted with caution due to the evidence of heterogeneity ..."
Parents and teachers often ask: Does ADHD medication actually improve grades and school performance? The answer is: yes, but with important limitations. Medications are very effective at reducing inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity but their impact on long-term academic outcomes like grades and test scores is not as consistent.
In the Classroom
The medications for ADHD consistently: Improve attention, reduce classroom disruptions, increase time spent on-task and help children complete more schoolwork and homework. Medication can help children with ADHD access learning by improving the conditions for paying attention and persisting with work.
Does Medication Improve Test Scores and Grades?
This is where the picture gets more complicated. Medications have stronger effect on how much work is completed but a weaker effect on accuracy. Many studies show that children on medication attempt more problems in reading, math, and spelling, but the number of correct answers doesn’t always improve as much. Some studies find small but significant improvements in national exam scores and higher education entrance tests during periods when children with ADHD are medicated.
Grades improve, as well, but modestly. Large registry studies in Sweden show that students who consistently take medication earn higher grades than those who don’t. However, these gains usually do not close the achievement gap with peers who do not have ADHD.
Keep in mind that small improvements for a group as a whole mean that some children are benefiting greatly from medication and others not at all. We have no way of predicting which children will improve and which do not.
Medication Alone Isn’t Enough
Academic success depends on more than just reducing inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity. Skills like organization, planning, studying, and managing long-term projects are also critical. Medication cannot teach these skills.
So, in addition to medication, the patient's treatment program should include educational support (tutoring, structured study skills programs), behavioral interventions (parent training, classroom management strategies), and accommodations at school (extra time, reduced distractions, organizational aids) Parents should discuss with their prescriber which of these methods would be appropriate.
Conclusions
ADHD medication is a powerful tool for reducing symptoms and supporting learning. It improves test scores and grades for some children, especially when taken consistently. But it is not a magic bullet for academic success. The best results come when medication is combined with educational and behavioral supports that help children build the skills they need to thrive in school and beyond.
The focus on children and adolescents with ADHD often revolves around behavioral issues and academic difficulties, but the social struggles are real. Around 60% of youth with ADHD experience meaningful difficulties in social skills, reading social cues, and forming reciprocal relationships with peers. Over time, these struggles can raise the risk of anxiety and depression.
Medication remains the primary treatment for ADHD, with stimulants like methylphenidate (Ritalin) being the most commonly prescribed. While effective at reducing core symptoms such as inattention and impulsivity, medication has not been shown to improve social behavior or peer relationships.
The Background:
Exercise has recently emerged as a promising adjunctive therapy. A newly published meta-analysis examined whether structured physical activity can specifically improve social functioning in young people with ADHD. It builds on a previous review from 2015, addressing gaps that earlier work left open: social outcomes were rarely treated as a primary focus, and no prior analysis had systematically compared exercise types or asked how much exercise is actually needed to see benefits.
The Study:
The analysis included 13 randomized controlled trials involving 703 participants aged 6 to 18, all clinically diagnosed with ADHD. Only exercise programs lasting at least four weeks were considered. Studies that combined exercise with other therapies, such as psychotherapy, were excluded to isolate exercise's specific effects.
The researchers used a technique called network meta-analysis, which allows different interventions to be compared against one another even when they haven't been tested head-to-head, alongside dose-response modeling to identify how much exercise produces the greatest benefit.
Results:
The most striking results came from closed-skill exercise: across four studies involving 92 participants, it was associated with a very large reduction in social dysfunction. Open-skill exercise, by contrast, showed no measurable improvement across four studies with 91 participants. Multicomponent exercise (the group combining elements of both open- and closed-skill) reported large gains in two smaller studies with 33 participants.
Mind-body exercise showed a moderate benefit across three studies involving 44 participants.
The dose-response analysis offered a practically useful finding: 30 to 60 minutes of moderate-intensity exercise per day appeared to produce the best outcomes, with a minimum of roughly 15 to 30 minutes daily needed to achieve any meaningful benefit.
The Take-Away:
The results are encouraging but should be interpreted carefully. The number of studies in each category was small (two to three studies each), and sample sizes were modest, meaning the findings may not hold up as more evidence accumulates. The absence of publication bias is reassuring, as is the use of rigorous methodology, but this remains an early-stage evidence base. Larger, well-designed trials are needed before firm clinical recommendations can be made.
For now, the findings position structured physical activity (particularly closed-skill and multicomponent exercise) as a plausible complement to existing ADHD treatment, specifically targeting the social difficulties that medication tends not to address. The practical dose guidance is a useful starting point: around half an hour of moderate daily exercise as a minimum, with an hour as the apparent sweet spot. As low-risk additions to a treatment plan go, that’s a relatively accessible bar for most families to consider alongside professional guidance.
Exercise has attracted growing attention as an intervention for ADHD. As a potential treatment option for ADHD, it is, of course, highly appealing because it can be low- to no-cost, widely accessible, and free of the side effects that can accompany medication. From previous studies, we know that certain types of exercise may be more effective than others, but do we actually know enough for clinicians to prescribe physical activity as a treatment for ADHD?
The First Study: Effects on Core ADHD Symptoms
Despite encouraging findings in individual studies, researchers have lacked clear guidance on which types of exercise work best, at what intensity, and for how long. A meta-analysis by Chen et al. set out to address this by pooling data from 20 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 841 children and adolescents aged 4–18, all of which compared exercise interventions against non-exercising control groups.
The results were cautiously optimistic. Across standardized symptom scales, exercise produced a small improvement in ADHD symptoms overall. Objective cognitive tests showed a moderate improvement. Emotional and behavioral outcomes, however, showed no significant change.
To understand what was driving differences between studies, the researchers broke results down by exercise type. Therapeutic and alternative exercises (targeted movements and specific techniques such as those prescribed by physical therapists) were associated with moderate symptom improvements. Mind-body practices (such as yoga or tai chi) showed small-to-moderate gains. Conventional aerobic exercise yielded smaller effects, while skill-based competitive sports showed no measurable benefit. Notably, the variability between individual studies remained high throughout, meaning these categories should be interpreted with some caution.
Results:
The authors recommend that clinicians and parents consider incorporating therapeutic or alternative exercise sessions twice a week, each lasting 60–90 minutes, as a supplemental strategy alongside existing ADHD treatment. They stop short of calling this definitive, noting that future research should clarify how exercise produces its effects and how it might best be combined with medication or behavioral therapy.
The Second Study: Effects on Inhibitory Control
A second meta-analysis, by Zhang et al., zoomed in on a specific and particularly relevant cognitive challenge in ADHD: inhibitory control. Inhibitory control refers to the ability to suppress impulsive responses and tune out irrelevant distractions. This capacity underlies much of the restlessness, interrupting, and difficulty staying on task that characterize the condition.
This analysis drew on 34 studies with over 1,300 participants spanning all age groups, making it broader in scope than the Chen et al. review. Overall, exercise was associated with a moderate improvement in inhibitory control. When the analysis was restricted to RCTs alone, this finding held up. When studies with a high risk of bias were excluded, however, the effect size dropped to small-to-moderate.
One notable null result: three studies that used EEG to measure brain activity during inhibitory tasks found no significant effects on the neural signatures most closely tied to this process. This suggests exercise may influence behavior without necessarily changing the underlying brain mechanisms researchers expected, or that current methods aren't yet sensitive enough to detect such changes.
The dosing question produced some of the more practically useful findings. Single exercise sessions yielded only borderline small improvements. Sustained exercise programs, by contrast, showed moderate improvements, and programs with sessions three times per week produced large gains and had the strongest effect between the two meta-analyses. Exercise intensity and total program duration, perhaps interestingly, were not significant factors.
Results:
The authors are measured in their conclusions: exercise shows a real but modest benefit for inhibitory control, and frequency appears to matter more than intensity. They caution against overstating the case for exercise as treatment for ADHD overall, as it did not significantly affect hyperactivity or impulsivity as standalone outcomes, and its neural effects remain unclear.
The Broader Picture :
Ultimately, these two meta-analyses support exercise as a meaningful supplemental intervention for ADHD, particularly for attention and cognitive control, while urging realistic expectations. Neither suggests exercise should replace established treatments. Both are limited by high variability across the underlying studies, and both call for better-designed research to sharpen the guidance available to clinicians and families.
Boredom is more than just feeling restless or under-stimulated. It’s a negative emotional state that arises when activities feel meaningless or dull and, for those with ADHD, this negative emotional state might be markedly more intense. Researchers increasingly view boredom as functional: an internal signal pushing people to seek more rewarding and meaningful experiences. But for some, that signal becomes chronic and overwhelming.
People who are highly prone to boredom face a range of psychological and behavioral consequences, including anxiety, depression, difficulty identifying their own emotions (alexithymia), impulsivity, and physical complaints. These struggles often surface in harmful behaviors: overeating, substance use, compulsive internet use, and gambling.
For people with ADHD, boredom can cross into genuine distress. Many describe it as “torture” or “an itchy coat you can’t scratch”, language that conveys not mild discomfort but an urgent, almost unbearable need to escape. This makes sense given that ADHD involves core difficulties with attention, arousal regulation, and motivation, all of which make sustained engagement harder and boredom far more likely.
The Study:
A recent meta-analysis of 18 studies involving more than 22,000 participants confirmed a moderately strong and consistent positive association (an overall effect size of r = 0.40) between ADHD and self-reported boredom. All but one study found significant results, and there was no evidence of publication bias.
“While the relationship between ADHD and boredom may seem obvious,” the authors state, “this has paradoxically led to the phenomenon being understudied.”
Despite how significant this connection appears to be, the researchers noted it has attracted surprisingly little scientific attention; a gap they attribute to a widespread assumption that boredom in ADHD is simply a byproduct of inattention or impulsivity, and therefore not worth studying on its own terms. They push back on that view, arguing that boredom may be a more fundamental part of the ADHD experience: a bridge between atypical brain function and the behavioral, emotional, and cognitive difficulties that shape long-term outcomes.
The Take-Away:
Ultimately, addressing the profound boredom experienced by individuals with ADHD requires a multifaceted approach that goes beyond simply treating inattention. Researchers emphasize the need for rigorous studies to determine if stimulant medications actively reduce this intense boredom by repairing underlying brain mechanisms, rather than just as a side effect of improved focus. Beyond medication, tailored psychological therapies may offer promise; psychoeducation can help individuals reframe boredom as a biological signal rather than a personal failure or character flaw.
Additionally, another approach suggests that rather than solely focusing on treating the individual, systemic issues must be addressed, such as the effects of low-stimulation environments. For example, prioritizing a better "person-environment fit" through smaller class sizes, flexible academic pacing, and/or offering highly stimulating, novel tasks, schools and workplaces can offer meaningful relief from the chronic distress of ADHD-related boredom.
_logo%201.svg)
