| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
Institute of Development, Research, Advocacy and Applied Care (IDRAAC), Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, St George Hospital University Medical Centre, Balamand University, Beirut, Lebanon
Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Health Services Research Unit, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Mèdica, Barcelona, Spain
Department of Psychiatry, University of Leipzig, Germany
Department of Neurosciences and Psychiatry, University Hospitals Gasthuisberg, Belgium
Department of Mental Health, AUSL di Bologna, Bologna, Italy
Sant Joan de Déu-SSM, Fundacio San Joan de Déu, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain
Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, St George Hospital University Medical Centre, Balamand University, Beirut, Lebanon
Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatria, Universidada Autonoma Metropolitana, Mexico City, Mexico
Hospital Fernand Widal, Paris, France
Department of Psychiatry and Department of Epidemiology and Bioinformatics, University Medical Centre, Groningen, The Netherlands
Colegio Mayor de Cundinamarca University, Saldarriaga Concha Foundation, Bogota, Colombia
Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
Correspondence: Dr John Fayyad, Department of Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology, St George Hospital University Medical Centre, PO Box 166378, Beirut-Achrafieh 1100-2807, Lebanon. Tel: +961 (1)58 3583; fax: +961 (1)58 7190; email: jfayyad{at}idraac.org
Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Aims To estimate the prevalence and correlates of DSM–IV adult ADHD in the World Health Organization World Mental Health Survey Initiative.
Method An ADHD screen was administered to respondents aged 18-44 years in ten countries in the Americas, Europe and the Middle East (n=11422). Masked clinical reappraisal interviews were administered to 154 US respondents to calibrate the screen. Multiple imputation was used to estimate prevalence and correlates based on the assumption of cross-national calibration comparability.
Results Estimates of ADHD prevalence averaged 3.4% (range 1.2–7.3%), with lower prevalence in lower-income countries (1.9%) compared with higher-income countries (4.2%). Adult ADHD often co-occurs with other DSM–IV disorders and is associated with considerable role disability. Few cases are treated for ADHD, but in many cases treatment is given for comorbid disorders.
Conclusions Adult ADHD should be considered more seriously in future epidemiological and clinical studies than is currently the case.
|
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
As adult ADHD was not included in any of the major psychiatric epidemiological surveys that have been carried out around the world since the landmark Epidemiologic Catchment Area study in the early 1980s (Weissman et al, 1996; World Health Organization (WHO) International Consortium in Psychiatric Epidemiology, 2000), attempts to estimate adult ADHD prevalence have been based either on extrapolations from childhood prevalence estimates using information from clinical studies regarding the proportion of childhood cases that persist into adulthood (Barkley et al, 2002) or on direct estimates from small samples (Faraone & Biederman, 2005). Most of the studies of either type have taken place in the USA, where estimates of adult ADHD prevalence are in the range 1–6%. A review by Faraone et al (2003) based on 20 studies in the USA and 30 studies in other countries found that prevalence estimates of childhood and adolescent ADHD were as high in many non-US studies as in US studies. Studies of adult ADHD in non-US populations, though, are much rarer. The only general-population non-US study took place in a town in The Netherlands (Kooij et al, 2005), but absence of information on age of onset and pervasiveness of symptoms made it impossible to generate an unbiased prevalence estimate of adult ADHD in this population. In order to obtain more accurate estimates of prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD, a screen for this disorder was developed for use in the World Health Organization World Mental Health (WMH) surveys (Demyttenaere et al, 2004). We present here the results from the ten WMH surveys that included this screen.
|
|
METHOD |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
The WMH interview schedule was in two parts. All respondents completed part I, which contained core diagnostic assessments. All part I respondents who met criteria for any of these core disorders plus a probability subsample of other part I respondents were administered part II, which assessed disorders of secondary interest and a wide range of correlates. Adult ADHD was assessed in part II. As one requirement for a diagnosis of ADHD is onset of symptoms in childhood, the assessment was limited to respondents in the age range 18–44 years because of concerns about accuracy of retrospective recall among older respondents. A total of 11 422 respondents in this age range were screened across the ten surveys, with the size of within-country samples ranging from 3197 in the USA to 486 in Belgium.
The WMH interview schedule and all other study training materials and respondent visual aids were translated using standardised World Health Organization (WHO) translation and back-translation protocols (these materials are posted at http://www.hcp.med.harvard.edu/wmh). Consistent interviewer training and quality control procedures were used in all surveys. Procedures for informed consent, which was obtained in all countries before beginning interviews, were approved and monitored for compliance by the institutional review boards of the organisations coordinating the surveys in each country.
Adult ADHD
The retrospective assessment of childhood ADHD in the WMH surveys was based
on the Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM–IV (DIS;
Robins et al, 1995).
Respondents classified retrospectively as having met full ADHD criteria in
childhood were then asked a single question about whether they continued to
have any current problems with attention or hyperactivity–impulsivity. A
clinical reappraisal interview of these respondents was carried out in a
probability subsample of 154 respondents in the WMH sample in the USA using
the Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale, version 1.2 (ACDS;
Adler & Cohen, 2004;
Adler & Spencer, 2004), a
semi-structured interview which includes the ADHD Rating Scale (ADHD–RS;
DuPaul et al, 1998)
for childhood ADHD and an adaptation of the ADHD–RS to assess current
adult ADHD. The ACDS has been used in clinical trials of adult ADHD
(Spencer et al, 2001;
Michelson et al,
2003).
Four experienced clinical interviewers (all PhD-qualified clinical psychologists) conducted the clinical reappraisal interviews. Each interviewer received 40 h of training from two board-certified psychiatrists, specialists in the treatment of adult ADHD, and successfully completed five practice interviews. All clinical interviews were tape-recorded and reviewed by a supervisor. Weekly calibrator meetings were used to prevent drift. A clinical diagnosis of adult ADHD required six symptoms of either inattention or hyperactivity–impulsivity during the 6 months before the interview (DSM–IV criterion A; American Psychiatric Association, 1994), at least two criterion A symptoms before age 7 years (criterion B), some impairment in at least two areas of living during the previous 6 months (criterion C) and clinically significant impairment in at least one of these areas (criterion D). No attempt was made to operationalise DSM–IV diagnostic hierarchy rules (criterion E).
The DIS questions used to assess ADHD in the main survey were treated as independent variables in the subsample of clinical reappraisal respondents who reported recent symptoms to predict masked clinician diagnoses of DSM–IV adult ADHD. As detailed elsewhere (Kessler et al, 2006), a strong association (with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.86) was found between these independent variables and the clinical diagnoses, based on a four-category classification scheme that distinguished respondents in terms of whether they reported no childhood symptoms of ADHD, sub-threshold symptoms, threshold symptoms in the absence of adult persistence or threshold symptoms with adult persistence. This strong association between the DIS questions and the masked clinical diagnoses provided the empirical justification for using the DIS symptom recency questions to generate a predicted probability of adult ADHD for every respondent in the larger samples. It needs to be noted, however, that a major limitation in this approach is that we have no way of knowing from these data whether the same strong association between the DIS and clinical diagnoses holds in countries other than the USA.
Co-occurring DSM-IV disorders
Other DSM–IV disorders were assessed in the WMH surveys using the WHO
Composite International Diagnostic Interview, version 3.0 (CIDI;
Kessler & Ustun, 2004), a
fully structured, lay-administered diagnostic interview. The core disorders
include anxiety disorders, mood disorders and substance use disorders. Organic
exclusion rules and diagnostic hierarchy rules were used in making diagnoses.
As detailed elsewhere (Haro et
al, 2007), masked clinical reappraisal interviews using the
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV (SCID;
First et al, 2002)
with a probability subsample of respondents from the US survey found
acceptable concordance of DSM–IV diagnoses based on the CIDI and SCID
interviews in four WMH countries where clinical reappraisal studies were
carried out. Each CIDI diagnostic section included questions about age at
onset of the focal disorder. These retrospective reports of age at onset were
compared for ADHD and other DSM–IV disorders among respondents who met
criteria for adult ADHD with comorbid anxiety, mood and substance use
disorders in order to study temporal priorities in these cases of
co-occurrence.
Other correlates of adult ADHD
We examined associations of adult ADHD with socio-demographic data and role
disability, assessed with the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule
(WHO–DAS; Chwastiak & Von Korff,
2003). The WHO–DAS assesses frequency and intensity of
restriction or lack of ability to perform activities in a number of domains
over the past 30 days. Three areas of basic activity were considered –
mobility (e.g. walking a mile), self-care (e.g. getting dressed) and cognition
(e.g. remembering to do important things) – along with two areas of
instrumental activity –` time out of role' (i.e. number of days totally
unable to carry out normal daily activities) and social role performance (e.g.
controlling emotions when around other people). Dichotomous measures of
disability were defined for the dimensions of mobility, self-care, cognition
and social role by giving equal weights to frequency and intensity and
defining disability as having any difficulty in basic functioning or role
performance. The dichotomy for time out of role was defined as having more
than 8 days out of role.
We asked about treatment of specific emotional and substance problems in separate diagnostic sections of the CIDI. We also asked a more general series of questions about seeking treatment for any emotional problem in a separate treatment section of the interview. Comparison of responses about treatment of ADHD and about treatment of emotional problems more generally allowed us to pinpoint people with ADHD who had received treatment for comorbid mental or substance use problems but not for ADHD.
Analysis methods
A prediction equation estimated in the clinical reappraisal sample was used
to generate a predicted probability of DSM–IV adult ADHD for each
respondent who was administered the DIS ADHD section in the main interview but
who did not complete a clinical reappraisal interview. The method of multiple
imputation (Rubin, 1987) was
used to convert these predicted probabilities into dichotomous diagnostic
classifications and to adjust significance tests for the fact that the
predicted clinical diagnoses are imperfectly related to actual clinical
diagnoses. This method is based on the assumption that the calibration of the
DIS ADHD symptom and recency questions in the US clinical reappraisal study
applies equally well to the other WMH countries – an assumption that
cannot be tested here in light of the fact that no clinical reappraisal study
for adult ADHD was conducted in any of the other countries.
Socio-demographic correlates were estimated using multiple imputation logistic regression analysis. Co-occurrence was assessed by obtaining multiply imputed estimates of odds ratios between adult ADHD and other DSM–IV disorders in logistic regression equations that controlled for age in 5-year age groups. Functional disabilities were also estimated using multiple imputation logistic regression. Twelve-month treatment was estimated using multiple imputation cross-tabulations. In each phase of analysis we generated estimates both separately for each of the ten samples and also in a combined cross-sample analysis that included nine dummy control variables to indicate country. Interactions were then estimated between the country dummies and the substantive predictors to evaluate the significance of between-country differences. Such differences, although few in number, are noted in the following presentation of substantive results.
Part I cases were weighted to adjust for differential probabilities of
selection within and between households and to match sample distributions to
population distributions on socio-demographic and geographic data. The part II
sample was additionally weighted for the undersampling of part I respondents
without core disorders. Because the sample design used this weighting as well
as geographic clustering, all parameters were estimated using the Taylor
series linearisation method (Wolter,
1985), a design-based method implemented in the SUDAAN software
system (Research Triangle Institute, North Carolina, USA). All significance
tests used two-sided Wald 
2 tests based on design-corrected
multiple imputation variance–covariance matrices.
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
Socio-demographic correlates
Multiple imputation prevalence estimates of clinician-assessed adult ADHD
were significantly greater in the total cross-national sample among men and
among people educated to less than university level
(Table 3), but these effects
were modest in magnitude (1.5<OR<3.0). No significant between-country
difference was found in the magnitude of the effects of gender and education,
although it is noteworthy that there was little power to detect such effects
(further details available from the authors).
|
Co-occurrence with other DSM-IV disorders
Adult ADHD was significantly associated with a wide range of other 12-month
DSM–IV disorders (Table
4). The strength of these associations in terms of odds ratios was
remarkably consistent across classes of disorder, with OR=3.9 (95% CI
3.0–5.1) for mood disorders, OR=4.0 (95% CI 3.0–5.2) for anxiety
disorders and OR=4.0 (95% CI 2.8–5.8) for substance use disorders. A
dose–response relationship exists between ADHD and number of other
disorders, with the highest odds ratio (OR=7.2, 95% CI 5.1–10.2)
associated with having three or more other disorders. Within-country patterns
were similar to those in the combined sample, with a predominantly positive
sign pattern (68 of the 70 odds ratios in the ten separate countries were
greater than 1.0) and 56% of the within-country odds ratios significant at the
P<0.05 level. However, this pattern was notably weaker in France
(further details available from the authors).
|
Temporal priorities among co-occurring disorders
Retrospective reports of age at onset were used to compare temporal
priority between the first onset of ADHD and that of co-occurring disorders
among respondents with adult ADHD (Table
5). The ADHD was reported to have started at an earlier age than
the vast majority of co-occurring mood disorders (85.6%), anxiety disorders
other than specific phobia (68.5%) and substance use disorders (99.0%).
However, co-occurring specific phobia was reported to start at an earlier age
than ADHD more often than the reverse (54.8% specific phobia first v.
34.3% ADHD first). These patterns are very robust across countries (further
details available from the authors).
|
Disability
Adult ADHD was associated with significantly elevated odds ratios of
disability in two of the three WHO–DAS dimensions of basic functioning
–mobility (OR=2.2, 95% CI 1.6–2.9) and cognition (OR=3.9, 95% CI
2.8–5.4) – but not in the third dimension of self-care (OR=1.5,
95% CI 0.8–2.8) (Table
6). Adult ADHD was also associated with elevated risk of high
number of days out of role (OR=2.6, 95% CI 2.0–3.5) and with disability
in social functioning (OR=3.1, 95% CI 2.1–4.5). These associations
become somewhat weaker but remain statistically significant when controls are
introduced for co-occurring anxiety, mood and substance use disorders.
Within-country patterns are again similar to those in the combined sample,
with 82% of within-country odds ratios greater than 1.0 and 46% significant at
the P<0.05 level (further details available from the authors). The
Netherlands is the only country where reported disability was consistently and
significantly lower than the results in the combined sample. Only a handful of
other within-country odds ratios differed significantly from the
cross-national averages.
|
Twelve-month treatment
Patterns of treatment for emotional or substance use problems in the 12
months before interview among respondents with adult ADHD differed much more
markedly across surveys than did any of the other statistics examined in this
report (Table 7). The highest
proportion of cases receiving treatment was in the USA, where nearly half
(49.7%) of respondents reported some type of care, followed by roughly half as
many (19.9–23.8%) receiving treatment in three of the European countries
(Belgium, The Netherlands and Spain), roughly half this proportion
(9.4–12.4%) in four other countries (Colombia, France, Germany and
Mexico) and only 1.1% in Lebanon. The majority of people receiving treatment
were seen in the specialty mental health sector in all countries other than
France and Italy, where the majority were seen in the general medical sector.
It is important to recognise that these patients were generally seen not for
problems with attention, concentration, impulsivity or hyperactivity, but
rather for other emotional or behavioural problems.
|
|
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
More importantly, our use of imputation to estimate adult ADHD introduced several other important limitations that need to be recognised in interpreting our results. For one, the model relied on retrospective assessments of childhood symptoms in conjunction with only a single question about recent adult persistence. Even though these responses were strongly related to independent clinical assessments of adult ADHD in the US sample, the coarse classification created by relying on only a single question about recency limited the texture with which we could study correlates of adult ADHD. This coarseness reduces the precision of estimates and, with it, attenuates measures of association. In addition, the imputation model was based on a clinical calibration conducted only in the USA. We have no way of confirming the analytical assumption that the positive and negative predictive values estimated to calibrate the imputations are the same in the other countries studied – an assumption that is fundamental to the imputation method. This is especially problematic given that, as noted in the introduction, little research on adult ADHD has been conducted outside the USA, making it unclear if the same markers apply in other countries. Given the centrality of this issue, it is important that the CIDI assessment of adult ADHD is expanded for use in future CIDI surveys (an expansion that has, in fact, been implemented in the second flight of WMH surveys that are currently taking place) and that the validity of these diagnoses is assessed with clinician-administered diagnostic interviews in clinical reappraisal studies embedded within future surveys in countries other than the USA. Another limitation of the imputation model – which would be relevant even if the model were equally accurate in all countries – is that it understates the strength of associations of adult ADHD with covariates that, owing to limitations of sample size, were not included as predictors in the model. This means that the evidence regarding socio-demographic correlates of adult ADHD reported here is likely to be conservative.
Finally, a question can be raised about the validity of the DSM–IV ADHD criteria when applied to adults, considering they were developed with children in mind. Clinical studies make it clear that symptoms of ADHD are more heterogeneous and subtle in adults than in children (De Quiros & Kinsbourne, 2001), leading some clinical researchers to suggest that assessment of adult ADHD might require an increase in the variety of symptoms assessed (Barkley, 1995), a reduction in the severity threshold (Ratey et al, 1992) or a reduction in the DSM–IV `six of nine' symptom requirement (Kooij et al, 2005). To the extent that such considerations in the criteria would lead to a more valid assessment than in the current study, our prevalence estimate is conservative.
Within the context of these limitations, the results reported suggest that adult ADHD as currently defined in the DSM–IV is a commonly occurring and often seriously impairing disorder. The 3.4% estimated prevalence is likely to be conservative for the reasons described above. Although we would expect to find some variation in prevalence from one country to another, the amount of cross-national variation in the estimated prevalence is small compared with estimates for other disorders (Demyttenaere et al, 2004). This low variation might be due to methodological factors such as a general lack of awareness about ADHD that makes it difficult for respondents to discriminate between questions, or that leads to normative cultural interpretations of certain symptoms (e.g. a high tolerance of hyperactivity in boys). Another possibility, though, is that adult ADHD is less strongly related than other disorders to environmental determinants that can vary across countries.
The findings that adult ADHD is significantly more prevalent among men than women and among people with low rather than high educational levels are consistent with much previous research (Scahill & Schwab-Stone, 2000) and, as noted above in the discussion of limitations, are likely to be underestimates of the strength of these associations owing to the attenuation introduced by the coarseness of the imputations. The failure to find an elevated prevalence of ADHD among unemployed people, however, is inconsistent with these same studies. Nonetheless, we do find that WMH respondents estimated to have ADHD report significantly more disability in role functioning, as indicated by more days out of role and more disability in social role functioning, than comparable respondents without ADHD. These results regarding role disability are consistent with much previous research on disability in adult ADHD (Able et al, 2007). It is noteworthy that the WHO–DAS dimension associated with the highest impairment in the current study is the cognitive disability dimension. This finding is as one would expect, given the nature of the disorder. However, the WHO–DAS might underrepresent ADHD disability because some WHO–DAS dimensions tap areas where ADHD is not highly disabling (e.g. people with ADHD are often very mobile and overwork) and because the WHO–DAS does not assess many dimensions where people with ADHD are thought to function less adequately (e.g. poor sleep and nutrition, high rates of accidents, high levels of smoking). Moreover, people with ADHD often have poor insight into their functioning, possibly leading to underestimation of WHO–DAS scores. It might also be that the social and interpersonal disabilities associated with adult ADHD require more detailed probing to detect than provided in the WHO–DAS. Based on these considerations, along with the more general problem noted above that imputation leads to attenuation of associations, the disabilities due to ADHD are likely to be underestimated. This makes it all the more striking that adult ADHD is consistently associated across countries with substantial elevations in disability that cannot be accounted for by co-occurring disorders.
The estimate that adult ADHD often co-occurs with other DSM–IV disorders is consistent with clinical evidence (Biederman, 2004). Methodological analysis shows that the evidence of co-occurrence holds up when careful diagnoses are made aimed at adjusting for overlap of symptoms, imprecision of diagnostic criteria, or other methodological confounds (Angold et al, 1999). The results regarding co-occurrence in our report, however, are likely to be much less precise – both because diagnoses of co-occurring disorders are based on a fully structured interview that, due to its limited ability to make differential diagnoses, will cause overestimation of co-occurrence, and because the diagnoses of adult ADHD are based on coarse imputations that, due to their individual-level imprecision, will lead to attenuation of correlations with other variables and consequent underestimation of systematic co-occurrence (i.e. underestimation of odds ratios).
As one might expect from the early onset of ADHD, comparison of reports of age at onset showed that the estimated co-occurrence in the WMH surveys is due to temporally primary ADHD being related to the subsequent onset of other disorders. The main exception here is co-occurring specific phobia, which is typically temporally primary to ADHD. This last observation raises the question whether early successful treatment of childhood ADHD would influence secondary adult disorders, an issue that is beyond the scope of the current report to investigate. A related question is whether adult treatment of ADHD would have any effect on severity or persistence of co-occurring temporally secondary disorders. Long-term research is needed to answer these questions. The results reported here highlight the importance of such long-term research by documenting that adult ADHD is a relatively common disorder in a number of countries, often co-occurs with largely temporally secondary conditions, and that it is associated with substantial impairment in adult role functioning.
|
|
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
|
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODRESULTSDISCUSSIONACKNOWLEDGMENTSREFERENCES |
|---|
Adler, L. & Cohen, J. (2004) Diagnosis and evaluation of adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 27, 187 -201.[CrossRef][Medline]
Adler, L. & Spencer, T. (2004) The Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale (ACDS), Version 1.2. New York University School of Medicine.
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edn) (DSM–IV) . APA.
Angold, A., Costello, E. J. & Erkanli, A. (1999) Comorbidity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 57 -87.[CrossRef][Medline]
Barkley, R. A. (1995) ADHD behavior checklist for adults. ADHD Report, 3, 16.
Barkley, R. A., Fischer, M., Smallish, L., et al (2002) The persistence of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder into young adulthood as a function of reporting source and definition of disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111, 279 -289.[CrossRef][Medline]
Biederman, J. (2004) Impact of comorbidity in adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65 (suppl. 3), 3 -7.
Chwastiak, L. A. & Von Korff, M. (2003) Disability in depression and back pain: evaluation of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHO–DAS II) in a primary care setting. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 507 -514.[CrossRef][Medline]
Demyttenaere, K., Bruffaerts, R., Posada-Villa, J., et
al (2004) Prevalence, severity, and unmet need for
treatment of mental disorders in the World Health Organization World Mental
Health surveys. JAMA,
291, 2581
-2590.
De Quiros, G. B. & Kinsbourne, M. (2001)
Adult ADHD. Analysis of self-ratings on a behavior questionnaire.
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences,
931, 140
-147.
DuPaul, G. J., Power, T. J., Anastopoulos, A. D., et al (1998) ADHD Rating Scale-IV: Checklists, Norms, and Clinical Interpretation. Guilford.
Faraone, S. V. & Biederman, J. (2005) What is the prevalence of adult ADHD? Results of a population screen of 966 adults. Journal of Attention Disorders, 9, 384-391.[Abstract]
Faraone, S. V., Sergeant, J., Gillberg, C., et al (2003) The worldwide prevalence of ADHD: is it an American condition? World Psychiatry, 2, 104-113.[Medline]
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., et al (2002) Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders, Research Version, Non-patient Edition (SCID-I/NP). Biometrics Research, New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Haro, J. M., Arbabzadeh-Bouchez, S., Brugha, T. S., et al (2007) Concordance of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Version 3.0 (CIDI 3.0) with standardized clinical assessments in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, in press.
Jensen, P. S., Rubio-Stipec, M., Canino, G., et al (1999) Parent and child contributions to diagnosis of mental disorder: are both informants always necessary? Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1569 -1579.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kessler, R. C., Adler, L., Barkley, R., et al
(2006) The prevalence and correlates of adult ADHD in the
United States: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication.
American Journal of Psychiatry,
163, 716
-723.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P., Chiu, W. T., et al (2004) The US National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS–R): design and field procedures. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 69-92.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kessler, R. C. & Ustun, T. B. (2004) The World Mental Health (WMH) survey initiative version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 13, 93 -121.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kooij, J. J., Buitelaar, J. K., van den Oord, E. J., et al (2005) Internal and external validity of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in a population-based sample of adults. Psychological Medicine, 35, 817 -827.[CrossRef][Medline]
McGough, J. J. & Barkley, R. A. (2004)
Diagnostic controversies in adult ADHD. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 161, 1948
-1956.
Michelson, D., Adler, L., Spencer, T., et al (2003) Atomoxetine in adults with ADHD: two randomized, placebo-controlled studies. Biological Psychiatry, 53, 112 -120.[CrossRef][Medline]
Murphy, P. & Schachar, R. (2000) Use of
self-ratings in the assessment of symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder in adults. American Journal of Psychiatry,
157, 1156
-1159.
Ratey, J., Greenberg, S., Bemporad, J. R., et al (1992) Unrecognized attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults presenting for outpatient psychotherapy. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 4, 267-275.
Robins, L. N., Cottler, L., Bucholz, K., et al (1995) Diagnostic Interview Schedule for DSM-IV. Washington University, St Louis, Missouri.
Rubin, D. B. (1987) Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Wiley.
Scahill, L. & Schwab-Stone, M. (2000) Epidemiology of ADHD in school-age children. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 9, 541-555.[Medline]
Spencer, T., Biederman, J., Wilens, T., et al
(2001) Efficacy of a mixed amphetamine salts compound in
adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 58, 775
-782.
Weiss, G. & Hechtman, L. (1993) Hyperactive Children Grown Up: ADHD in Children, Adolescents, and Adults. Guilford.
Weissman, M. M., Bland, R. C., Canino, G. J., et al (1996) Cross-national epidemiology of major depression and bipolar disorder. JAMA, 276, 293 -299.[Abstract]
Wender, P. H., Wolf, L. E. & Wasserstein, J.
(2001) Adults with ADHD. An overview. Annals of
the New York Academy of Sciences,
931, 1-16.
Wilens, T. E., Faraone, S. V. & Biederman, J.
(2004) Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in adults.
JAMA, 292, 619
-623.
Wolter, K. M. (1985) Introduction to Variance Estimation. Springer.
World Bank (2003) World Development Report 2004: Making Services Work for Poor People. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank.
World Health Organization International Consortium in Psychiatric Epidemiology (2000) Cross-national comparisons of the prevalences and correlates of mental disorders. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 78, 413 -426.[Medline]
Received for publication December 6, 2006. Revision received January 12, 2007. Accepted for publication February 1, 2007.
Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. R. Ramsay and A. L. Rostain Adult ADHD Research: Current Status and Future Directions J Atten Disord, May 1, 2008; 11(6): 624 - 627. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. E. Berg Substance misuse disguised as ADHD? The British Journal of Psychiatry, November 1, 2007; 191(5): 457 - 457. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all eLetters
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Psychiatric Bulletin | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment | All RCPsych Journals |
