Management of ADHD in Prisoners-Evidence Gaps and Reasons for Caution

Prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder in adult prisoners: An updated meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Previous meta-analyses may have overestimated the prevalence of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in prisoners by including data from selected samples.

AIMS

To estimate the prevalence of ADHD in unselected samples of adults in prison and examine potential sources of heterogeneity by meta-regression and subgroup analyses.

METHODS

We assessed all studies included in a 2018 systematic review for eligibility and updated the literature search to include studies published up to September 2023.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies reporting robust diagnostic data on ADHD in 3919 unselected adults in prison were included. In meta-regression, ADHD prevalence did not differ between men and women but it was significantly higher in studies using a two-phase design. In random sampling studies, the pooled prevalence of ADHD was 8.3% (95% CI: 3.8-12.8) which was further halved after the removal of an outlier.

CONCLUSION

One in 12 adults in prison have been diagnosed with ADHD. Our findings highlight the importance of using clear and consistent inclusion criteria in meta-analyses of prevalence.

Treatments for ADHD in adults in jails, prisons and correctional settings: a scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Attention-Deficit / Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is prevalent at a higher rate in correctional settings than in the general population. Treatment of ADHD in this environment is challenging as stimulants, the most common treatment for ADHD, require cautious prescribing in the context of frequent substance use disorders (SUD) and diversion in the institutional setting. In addition, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment approaches require significant staff resources. The aim of this scoping review is to map and summarize all literature addressing treatment of ADHD specifically in correctional settings, synthesize the evidence supporting various approaches, and highlight areas for future research. Due to the limited number of primary research studies addressing this question directly, we chose a scoping review methodology that would allow us to explore what kinds of studies and literature exist and include all types of articles directly related to our question.

RESULTS

Five-hundred sixty-five relevant articles were screened. Thirty-two articles were included in the final review. Eleven of the articles reported primary research. Five of these articles were based on three randomized controlled trials. Among randomized controlled trials on the effect of stimulants, inclusion criteria, outcome measures and effectiveness varied widely. Non-male and non-white populations were under-represented. Among review articles and recommendations opinion was inconsistent, with some recommending stimulants as first-line treatment and others recommending they be avoided altogether. The effect of non-stimulant medications was examined in 2 small studies. The only non-pharmacological treatment examined was dialectical behavior therapy, and only feasibility was reported. Four articles provided practice recommendations from consensus or expert opinion. Two of these recommended stimulants as first-line treatment, and two recommended stimulants as treatment of last resort.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a diverse but shallow literature addressing our research question. Primary research in the corrections setting is limited and varies in inclusion criteria, outcomes studied, and effectiveness. Recommendations on treatment are inconsistent. Future research should address methods of diagnosis, the role of non-stimulants, non-pharmacological interventions, non-male and non-white people who are incarcerated (PWAI), and effects of treatment method on patients, staff and other PWAI. Better research and guidance on treating ADHD has potential to improve health of PWAI, the institutional environment, and resource utilization.