Finally, the Dalsgaard et al. study has important strengths and weaknesses. A key strength of this study is the use of a long-period of follow-up without significant attrition rate in participants. This prolonged level of follow-up allows for the study researchers to identify anomalies and confounding issues in the data. The study also utilized DSM criteria for diagnosis of ADHD, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder. This measure, again, limits the possibility of erroneous assumptions. Results of the study were also validated through the use of Cox’s Hazard regression, which enhances the reliability of the presenting data. A key weakness in this study is an underrepresentation of female participants, 25 females compared to 183
…show more content…
One key difference is that the McCabe et al. study also stated that the early initiation of stimulant medications for ADHD was protective against the development of substance use disorders (McCabe et al., 2006). The Dalsgaard et al. study also signified that the early initiation of stimulant medications for the treatment of ADHD lowered the risk of future substance use disorder development (Dalsgaard et al., 2014). These two studies differ from the other three studies in the review that identified that early stimulant medication initiation presented no increase in the risk of substance use disorder development. These others three studies did not include statements that early stimulant medications treatment was protective or preventative in the development of substance use disorders; stating the need for future research on the impact stimulant medications have on adult substance …show more content…
Studies such as those by Dalsgaard and McCabe state the early initiation of stimulant medications for ADHD can be protective or decrease the incidence of future substance use issues. However, other studies included in this review maintain that this protective effect may only coincide with adolescence and young adulthood and not extend further into adulthood. The absence of extensive longitudinal research on this aspect makes it difficult to distinguish which line of thinking is correct. The main reason this form of research is so scarce is because of the costs associated with such a research undertaking and the high likelihood of attrition in the sample over an extended period of time. Another large gap in the research is the lack of racial diversity in the samples of the studies. Every study predominantly featured Caucasian participants; other racial groups were limited in their representation. One factor to consider is that Caucasians on average are more likely to seek mental health care than other minority groups; minority groups do not seek mental health service due to limited access and poorer quality of care. This may explain why samples are predominantly composed of Caucasians. The issue still remains, though, that the data from these studies may not have applications for other racial groups. Utilizing multiple
One key difference is that the McCabe et al. study also stated that the early initiation of stimulant medications for ADHD was protective against the development of substance use disorders (McCabe et al., 2006). The Dalsgaard et al. study also signified that the early initiation of stimulant medications for the treatment of ADHD lowered the risk of future substance use disorder development (Dalsgaard et al., 2014). These two studies differ from the other three studies in the review that identified that early stimulant medication initiation presented no increase in the risk of substance use disorder development. These others three studies did not include statements that early stimulant medications treatment was protective or preventative in the development of substance use disorders; stating the need for future research on the impact stimulant medications have on adult substance …show more content…
Studies such as those by Dalsgaard and McCabe state the early initiation of stimulant medications for ADHD can be protective or decrease the incidence of future substance use issues. However, other studies included in this review maintain that this protective effect may only coincide with adolescence and young adulthood and not extend further into adulthood. The absence of extensive longitudinal research on this aspect makes it difficult to distinguish which line of thinking is correct. The main reason this form of research is so scarce is because of the costs associated with such a research undertaking and the high likelihood of attrition in the sample over an extended period of time. Another large gap in the research is the lack of racial diversity in the samples of the studies. Every study predominantly featured Caucasian participants; other racial groups were limited in their representation. One factor to consider is that Caucasians on average are more likely to seek mental health care than other minority groups; minority groups do not seek mental health service due to limited access and poorer quality of care. This may explain why samples are predominantly composed of Caucasians. The issue still remains, though, that the data from these studies may not have applications for other racial groups. Utilizing multiple