Advertisement

Canadian Journal of Public Health

, Volume 90, Issue 5, pp 309–312 | Cite as

Prevalence of Methylphenidate Use Among Adolescents in Ontario

  • Frank J. Ivis
  • Edward M. AdlafEmail author
Article

Abstract

Despite a growing interest in the use of methylphenidate (Ritalin) to treat attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders, prevalence data has been scarce in Canada. A probability school survey conducted in 1997 among Ontario students in grades 7, 9, 11 and 13 is used to collect data on such use. Overall, 3.4% of students (5.3% of males, 1.7% of females) used methylphenidate in the previous year. Rates and patterns are similar to those found in the United States. Future research needs to examine reasons and correlates of use, extent of medical supervision and possible non-medical use of methylphenidate.

Résumé

En dépit d’un intérêt croissant pour l’usage du méthylphénidate (Ritalin) dans le traitement des troubles d’hyperactivité avec déficit de l’attention (THDA), les données sur sa prévalence sont rares au Canada. Nous recueillons des données sur cet usage par le biais d’une enquête probabiliste menée en 1997 dans les écoles auprès d’élèves ontariens inscrits en 7e, 9e, 11e et 13e années. Dans l’ensemble, 3,4 % des élèves (5,3 % des garçons et 1,7 % des filles) ont fait usage de méthylphénidate durant l’année précédente. Les tendances et les taux observés au Canada sont semblables à ceux observés aux États-Unis. Des recherches plus poussées devraient établir des corrélations entre l’usage, l’ampleur de la supervision médicale et le potentiel d’usage non médical du méthylphénidate.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Murray JB. Psychophysiological effects of methylphenidate (Ritalin). Psychological Reports 1987;61:315–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Safer DJ, Krager JM. A survey of medication treatment for hyperactive/inattentive students. JAMA 1988;250(115):2256–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cowart VS. The Ritalin controversy: What’s made this drug’s opponents hyperactive? JAMA 1988;259(17):2521–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Safer DJ, Krager JM. Effect of a media blitz and a threatened lawsuit on stimulant treatment. JAMA 1992;268(8):1004–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Safer DJ, Zito JM, Fine EM. Increased methylphenidate usage for attention deficit disorder in the 1990s. Pediatrics 1996;98(6):1084–88.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swanson JM, Lerner M, Williams L. More frequent diagnosis of attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. N Engl J Med 1995;333:944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA. Increased medication use in attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Regressive or appropriate? JAMA 1988;260(15):2270–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wolraich ML, Lindgren S, Stromquist A, et al. Stimulant medication use by primary care physicians in the treatment of attention deficit hyper-activity disorder. Pediatrics 1990;86(1):95–101.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kwasman A, Tinsley BJ, Lepper HS. Pediatricians’ knowledge and attitudes concerning diagnosis and treatment of attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 1995;149:1211–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scarnati R. An outline of hazardous side effects of Ritalin (methylphenidate). Int J Addict 1986;21(7):837–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section. Methylphenidate (A Background Paper). Drug Enforcement Administration, 1995.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Parran DT, Jr., Jasinski DR. Intravenous methylphenidate abuse: Prototype for prescription drug abuse. Arch Intern Med 1991;151:781–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Haglund RMJ, Howerton LL. Ritalin: Consequences of abuse in a clinical population. Int J Addict 1982;17(2):349–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Offord DR, Boyle MH, Szatmari P, et al. Ontario Child Health Study II. Six-month prevalence of disorder and rates of service utilization. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1987;44:832–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnston LD, O’Malley PM, Bachman JG. National Survey Results on Drug Use from the Monitoring the Future Study, 1975-1995:Volume I Secondary School Students (NIH 96-4139). Washington: National Institute on Drug Abuse, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Adlaf EM, Ivis FJ, Smart RG, Walsh GW. Ontario Student Drug Use Survey: 1977–1995. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poulin C, Wilbur B. Nova Scotia Student Drug Use 1996: Technical Report. Halifax: Nova Scotia Drug Dependency Services and Dalhousie University, 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Adlaf EM, Ivis FJ, Smart RG. Ontario Student Drug Use Survey: 1977–1997. Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation, 1997.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 5.0. College Station: Stata Corporation, 1997.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    National Institute on Drug Abuse. Epidemiological Trends in Drug Abuse, Volume II. Proceedings: Community Epidemiology Work Group, December 1997. Washington, DC, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Canadian Public Health Association 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Addiction and Mental HealthTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations