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.
September 17, 2025
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.
Cortese, S., et al. (2018). Comparative efficacy and tolerability of medications for ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(9), 727–738.
Jangmo, A., et al. (2019). Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, School Performance, and Medication: A Swedish 9-Year Follow-Up Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 58(4), 423–432.
Kortekaas-Rijlaarsdam, A. F., et al. (2019). Does methylphenidate improve academic performance? A meta-analysis and study on the role of daily practice. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 28(3), 357–370.
Lu, Y., et al. (2017). Association Between Medication Use and Performance on Higher Education Entrance Exams in ADHD. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(8), 815–822.
Molina, B. S. G., et al. (2009). The MTA at 8 Years: Prospective Follow-Up of Children Treated for Combined-Type ADHD in a Multisite Study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 48(5), 484–500.
Pérez, T. V., et al. (2025). Long-term effect of pharmacological treatment on academic outcomes: a target trial emulation. International Journal of Epidemiology, 54(2).
Shaw, M., et al. (2012). A systematic review and analysis of long-term outcomes in ADHD: effects of treatment and non-treatment. BMC Medicine, 10, 99.
A German team of researchers performed a comprehensive search of the medical literature and identified 35randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English that explored this question. Participating children were between three and six years old. Children with intellectual disabilities, sensory disabilities, or specific neurological disorders such as epilepsy were excluded.
The total number of participating preschoolers was over three thousand, drawn almost exclusively from the general population, meaning these studies were not specifically evaluating effects on children with ADHD. But given that ADHD results in poorer executive functioning, evidence of the effectiveness of cognitive training would suggest it could help partially reverse such deficits.
RCTs assign participants randomly to a treatment group and a group not receiving treatment but often receiving a placebo. But RCTs themselves vary in risk of bias, depending on:
After evaluating the RCTs by these criteria, the team performed a series of meta-analyses.
Combining the 23 RCTs with over 2,000 children that measured working memory, they found that cognitive training led to robust moderate improvements. Looking only at the eleven most rigorously controlled studies strengthened the effect, with moderate-to-large gains.
Twenty-six RCTs with over 2,200 children assessed inhibitory control. When pooled, they indicated a small-to-moderate improvement from cognitive training. Including only the seven most rigorously controlled studies again strengthened the effect, boosting it into the moderate effect zone.
Twelve RCTs with over 1,500 participants tested the effects of cognitive training on flexibility. When combined, they pointed to moderate gains. Looking at only the four well-controlled studies boosted the effect to strong gains. Yet here there was evidence of publication bias, so no firm conclusion can be drawn.
Only four studies with a combined total of 119 preschoolers tested the effects on ADHD ratings. The meta-analysis found a small but non-significant improvement, very likely due to insufficient sampling. As the authors noted, "some findings of the meta-analysis are limited by the insufficient number of eligible studies. Specifically, more studies are needed which use blinded assessments of subjective ratings of ADHD ... symptoms ..."
The authors concluded that their meta-analyses revealed significant, mostly medium-sized effects of the preschool interventions on core EFs [executive functions] in studies showing the low risk of bias."
Monitoring the Future is a multicohort U.S. national longitudinal study of adolescents followed up into young adulthood.
The U.S. research team used data from this study to follow 5,034 twelfth graders over a period of six years, until they were 23 and 24 years of age.
Prescription stimulant misuse was assessed at baseline and each follow-up survey year by asking how often they used prescription stimulants without a physician’s orders. They were similarly asked about cocaine and methamphetamine use.
The study team adjusted for the following confounding variables: sex, race and ethnicity, parents’ level of education, urbanicity, U.S. region, cohort year, grade point average during high school, past-30-day cigarette use (at 18 years of age), past-2-week binge drinking (at 18), past-year marijuana use (at 18), past-year prescription opioid misuse (at 18), past-year prescription stimulant misuse (at 18), lifetime cocaine use (at 18), lifetime methamphetamine use (at 18), lifetime use of nonstimulant therapy for ADHD (at 18), and discontinued use of stimulant therapy for ADHD (at 18).
With these adjustments, they found that stimulant use for ADHD was in no way associated with subsequent cocaine use. In fact, it was associated with lesser odds of subsequent cocaine use, though the association was not statistically significant.
Likewise, they reported that stimulant use for ADHD was in no way associated with subsequent methamphetamine use.
On the other hand, those who used prescription stimulants without a physician’s orders were 2.6 times more likely to subsequently use either cocaine or methamphetamine.
The team concluded, “In this multicohort study of adolescents exposed to prescription stimulants, adolescents who used stimulant therapy for ADHD did not differ from population controls in initiation of illicit stimulant (cocaine or methamphetamine) use, which suggested a potential protective effect, given evidence of elevated illicit stimulant use among those with ADHD. In contrast, monitoring adolescents for PSM is warranted because this behavior offered a strong signal for transitioning to later cocaine or methamphetamine initiation and use during young adulthood.”
Noting that “little is known about whether school-level stimulant therapy for ADHD is associated with NUPS [nonmedical use of prescription stimulants] among US secondary school students,” a team of American researchers searched for answers in a nationally representative sample of 3,284 U.S. secondary schools with well over 150,000 high school students.
“Previous studies,” the authors continued, “have largely neglected school-level factors associated with NUPS among US secondary school students, including school size, school geographical location, school-level racial composition, school-level rates of substance use (eg, binge drinking), and school-level stimulant therapy for ADHD.”
In surveys, students were asked if they had ever taken stimulant medications for ADHD under a physician’s or health professional’s supervision, with three possible answers: no, yes but only in the past, and yes, currently. Responses for use in the past, and separately for current use, were combined and aggregated to the school level to reflect the percentage of the study body who used prescription stimulants for ADHD.
The surveys explored NUPS by asking, “On how many occasions (if any) have you taken amphetamines or other prescription stimulant drugs on your own—that is, without a doctor telling you to take them... in your lifetime?...during the last 12 months?...during the last 30 days?”
The study team controlled for sex, race and ethnicity, parental education, GPA, binge drinking, cigarette smoking, cannabis use, cohort year, school type, grade level, urbanicity, school size, US Census region, % of student body with low grades, % female, % with at least one parent with a college degree, % White, % binge drinking during past 2 weeks, % cigarette smoking in past 30 days, and % cannabis use during the past 30 days. The analysis also included individual-level medical use of stimulant therapy for ADHD history to estimate individual-level past-year NUPS. Finally, it included both individual-level and school-level risk factors to assess individual-level past-year NUPS.
With all these adjustments, at the individual level, both high school students presently on prescribed stimulant therapy for ADHD and those who had previously been on such prescribed therapy were more than twice as likely to engage in past-year NUPS as those who were never on prescribed stimulant medication.
Turning to the school level, in schools where 12% or more of students were on prescribed stimulant therapy for ADHD, students in general were 36% more likely to engage in past-year NUPS than in schools where none of the students were on prescribed stimulant therapy for ADHD.
This is not surprising, as it confirms that students who use prescription drugs for nonmedical often get their supply from fellow students who are prescribed those drugs.
While at the individual level, binge drinking, cigarette smoking, and cannabis use were strong predictors of NUPS, at the whole-school level they had no significant effect. A poor grade point average mildly increased risk in the individual, but high percentages of students with low grades had no effect on peer NUPS. Race and ethnicity made a difference at the individual level (NUPS significantly more likely among White students than Blacks and Hispanics), but made no difference at the school level.
The team concluded, “These findings suggest that school-level stimulant therapy for ADHD and other school-level risk factors were significantly associated with NUPS and should be accounted for in risk-reduction strategies and prevention efforts.”
The Background:
Concerns remain about how ADHD and methylphenidate (MPH) use might affect children's health and growth, and especially how it may affect their adult height. While some studies suggest disrupted growth and a possible biological mechanism, the impact of ADHD prevalence and MPH use is still unclear. Children with ADHD may develop unhealthy habits – irregular eating, low physical activity, and poor sleep – that can contribute to obesity and reduced height. MPH’s appetite-suppressing effect can lead to skipped meals or overeating. Since growth hormone is mainly released during deep sleep, chronic sleep deprivation could plausibly slow growth and impair height development; however, a clear link between ADHD, MPH use, overweight, and shorter stature has never been firmly established.
The Study:
South Korea has a single payer health insurance system that covers more than 97% of its population. A Korean research team used the National Health Insurance Service database to perform a nationwide population study to explore this topic further.
The study involved 34,850 children, of whom 12,866 were diagnosed with ADHD. Of these children, 6,816 (53%) had received methylphenidate treatment, while 6,050 (47%) had not. Each patient with ADHD was precisely matched 1:1 by age, sex, and income level to a control participant without ADHD. The sex ratio was comparable in all groups.The team used Body Mass Index (BMI) as an indicator of overweight and obesity.
The Results:
The researchers found that being diagnosed with ADHD was associated with 50% greater odds of being overweight or obese as young adults, and over 70% greater odds of severe obesity (BMI > 30) compared to matched non-ADHD controls, regardless of whether or not they were medicated.
Those diagnosed with ADHD, but not on methylphenidate, had 40% greater odds of being overweight or obese, and over 55% greater odds of becoming severely obese, relative to matched non-ADHD controls.
Methylphenidate users had 60% greater odds of being overweight or obese, and over 85% greater odds of becoming severely obese, relative to matched non-ADHD controls.
There were signs of a dose-response effect. Less than a year’s exposure to methylphenidate was associated with roughly 75% greater odds of becoming severely obese, whereas exposure over a year or more raised the odds 2.3-fold, relative to matched non-ADHD controls. Using MPH increased the prevalence of overweight from 43.2% to 46.5%, with a greater prevalence among those using MPH for more than one year (50.5%).
It is important to note that most of this effect was from ADHD itself, with methylphenidate only assuming a predominant role in severe obesity among those with longer-term exposure to the medicine.
As for height, children with ADHD were no more likely to be short of stature than matched non-ADHD controls. Being prescribed methylphenidate was associated with slightly greater odds (7%) of being short of stature, but there was no dose-response relationship.
Conclusion:
The team concluded, “patients with ADHD, particularly those treated with MPH, had a higher BMI and shorter height at adulthood than individuals without ADHD. Although the observed height difference was clinically small in both sexes and age groups, the findings suggest that long-term MPH exposure may be associated with growth and body composition, highlighting the need for regular monitoring of growth.” They also point out that “Despite these findings, the clinical relevance should be interpreted with caution. In our cohort, the mean difference in height was less than 1 cm (eg, maximum −0.6 cm in females) below commonly accepted thresholds for clinical significance.” Likewise, increases in overweight/BMI were small.
One problem with interpreting the BMI/obesity results is that some of the genetic variants that cause ADHD also cause obesity. If that genetic load increases with severity of ADHD than the results from this study are confounded because those with more severe ADHD are more likely to be treated than those with less severe ADHD.
Due to these small effects along with the many study limitations noted by the authors, these results should be considered alongside the well-established benefits of methylphenidate treatment.
What do we mean by expert? In simple terms, an expert possesses in-depth knowledge and specialized training in a particular field. In order to be considered an expert in any field, a person must have both deep knowledge of and competence in their specific area of expertise. Experts have a background that includes education, research, and experience. In the world of mental health and psychology, this typically means formal credentials (a PhD, MD, etc) in addition to years of study, peer-reviewed publications, and/or extensive clinical experience.
Experts are recognized by their peers (and often by the public) as reliable authorities on a specific topic. Experts usually don’t make big claims without evidence; instead, they cite studies and speak cautiously about what the evidence shows.
Tip: Those looking for likes and clicks will often speak in absolutes (e.g., “refined sugar makes your ADHD worse, but the Keto Diet will eliminate ADHD symptoms”) while experts will use language that emphasizes evidence (e.g., “research has proven that there is no ‘ADHD Diet’, but some evidence has suggested that certain individuals with ADHD may benefit from such dietary interventions as limiting food coloring or increasing omega fatty acids.”)
Social media has created an incredible opportunity for those with ADHD to gain access to invaluable resources, including the creation of communities by and for those with ADHD. Many people with ADHD report feeling empowered and less alone by connecting with others online. These online social platforms provide a space for those with ADHD to share their own perspectives and their lived experience with the disorder. Both inside and outside of mental health-related communities, social media is a powerful tool for sharing information, reducing stigma, and helping people find community. When someone posts about their own ADHD challenges or tips, it can reassure others that they’re not the only ones facing these issues. This kind of peer support is valuable and affirming.
It is vital for those consuming this media, however, to remember that user-generated content on social media is not vetted or regulated. Short TikTok or Instagram videos are designed to grab attention, not to teach nuance or cite scientific studies. As it turns out, most popular ADHD posts are misleading or overly simplistic, at best. One analysis of ADHD TikTok videos found that over half were found to be “misleading” by professionals. Because social feeds reinforces what we already believe (the “echo chamber” effect, or confirmation bias), we can easily see only content that seems to confirm our own experiences, beliefs, or fears.
Stories aren’t a substitute for expert guidance.
It’s important to recognize the difference between personal experience and general expertise. Having ADHD makes you an expert on your ADHD, but it does not make you an expert on ADHD for everyone. Personal stories are not scientific facts. Even if someone’s personal journey is true, the same advice or experience may not apply to others. For instance, a strategy that helps one person focus might have no effect– or possibly even a negative effect– on someone else.
Researchers have found that most ADHD content on social media is based on creators’ own experiences, not on systematic research. In one study, almost every TikTok ADHD creator who listed credentials actually just cited their personal story. Worse, about 95% of those videos never noted that their tips might not apply to everyone (journals.plos.org.) In other words, they sound absolute even though they really only reflect one person’s situation. It’s easy to misunderstand the condition if we take those singular experiences as universal facts.
So how can you tell when someone is speaking from expertise rather than personal experience or hearsay? Experienced professionals usually speak cautiously, rather than in absolutes. They tend to say things like “research suggests,” “some studies show,” or “evidence indicates,” rather than claiming something always or never happens. As one health-communication guide puts it, a sign of a trustworthy source is that they do not speak in absolutes; instead, they use qualifiers like “may,” “might,” or refer to specific studies. For example, an expert might say, “Some people with ADHD may have difficulty with organization,” instead of “ADHD people always lose things.”
Real experts also cite evidence. In science and psychology, experts usually share knowledge through peer-reviewed articles, textbooks, or professional conferences – not just social media posts. Reliable health information is typically backed by references to studies published in reputable journals.
If someone makes a claim online, ask: Do they point to research, or is it just their own testimony? This is why it’s wise to prefer content where the author is a recognized authority (like a doctor or researcher) and where references to scientific studies or official guidelines are provided. In fact, advice from sites ending in “.gov”, “.edu”, or “.org” (government, university, or professional organizations) tends to be more reliable than random blogs. When in doubt, look up who wrote the material and whether it cites peer-reviewed research.
When navigating mental health information online, remember these key points:
If you see sweeping statements like “This one habit will predict if you have ADHD” or “Eliminating this one food will cure your ADHD symptoms”--- that’s a red flag. Instead, the hallmark of expert advice is a tone of humility (“evidence suggests,” “it appears that,” etc.), clear references to studies or consensus statements, and an acknowledgment that individual differences exist.
At the same time, we need to acknowledge that community voices are incredibly valuable – they help us feel understood and less alone. The goal is not to dismiss personal stories, but to balance them with facts and evidence-based information. Let lived experience spark questions, but verify important advice with credible sources. Follow trusted organizations (for example, the National Institutes of Health, CDC, or ADHD specialist groups) and mental health professionals who communicate carefully. Use the online ADHD community for support and sharing tips, but remember it’s just one piece of the puzzle.
By being a savvy reader (checking credentials, looking for cited evidence, and spotting overgeneralizations), you can make the most of online ADHD content. In doing so, you give yourself both the empathy of community and the accuracy of real expertise. That way, you’ll be well-equipped to separate helpful insights from hype and to keep learning from both personal stories and science-based experts.
Stimulant medications have long been considered the default first-line treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Clinical guidelines, prescribing practices, and public narratives all reinforce the idea that stimulants should be tried first, with non-stimulants reserved for cases where stimulants fail or are poorly tolerated.
I recently partnered with leading ADHD researcher Jeffrey Newcorn for a Nature Mental Health commentary on the subject. We argue that this hierarchy deserves reexamination. It is important to note that our position is not anti-stimulant. Rather, we call into question whether the evidence truly supports treating non-stimulants as secondary options, and we propose that both classes should be considered equal first-line treatments.
Stimulants have earned their reputation as the go-to drug of choice for ADHD. They are among the most effective medications in psychiatry, reliably reducing core ADHD symptoms and improving daily functioning when properly titrated and monitored. However, when stimulant and non-stimulant medications are compared more closely, the gap between them appears smaller than commonly assumed.
Meta-analyses often report slightly higher average response rates for stimulants, but head-to-head trials where patients are directly randomized to one medication versus another frequently find no statistically significant differences in symptom improvement or tolerability. Network meta-analyses similarly show that while some stimulant formulations have modest advantages, these differences are small and inconsistent, particularly in adults.
When translated into clinical terms, the advantage of stimulants becomes even more modest. Based on existing data, approximately eight patients would need to be treated with a stimulant rather than a non-stimulant for one additional person to experience a meaningful benefit. This corresponds to only a 56% probability that a given patient will respond better to a stimulant than to a non-stimulant. This difference is not what we would refer to as “clinically significant.”
One reason non-stimulants may appear less effective is the way efficacy is typically reported. Most comparisons rely on standardized mean differences, a method of averages that may mask heterogeneity of treatment effects. In reality, ADHD medications do not work uniformly across patients.
For example, evidence suggests that response to some non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine, is bimodal: this means that many patients respond extremely well, while others respond poorly, with few in between. When this happens, average effect sizes can obscure the fact that a substantial subgroup benefits just as much as they would from a stimulant. In other words, non-stimulants are not necessarily less effective across the board, but that they are simply different in who they help.
In our commentary, we also highlight structural issues in ADHD research. Stimulant trials are particularly vulnerable to unblinding, as their immediate and observable physiological effects can reveal treatment assignment, potentially inflating perceived efficacy. Non-stimulants, with slower onset and subtler effects, are less prone to this bias.
Additionally, many randomized trials exclude patients with common psychiatric comorbidities such as anxiety, depression, or substance-use disorders. Using co-diagnoses as exclusion criteria for clinical trials on ADHD medications is nonviable when considering the large number of ADHD patients who also have other diagnoses. Real-world data suggest that a large proportion of individuals with ADHD would not qualify for typical trials, limiting how well results generalize to everyday clinical practice.
Standard evaluations of medication tolerability focus on side effects experienced by patients, but this narrow lens misses broader societal consequences. Stimulants are Schedule II controlled substances, which introduces logistical barriers, regulatory burdens, supply vulnerabilities, and administrative strain for both patients and clinicians.
When used as directed, stimulant medications do not increase risk of substance-use disorders (and, in fact, tend to reduce these rates); however, as ADHD awareness has spread and stimulants are more widely prescribed, non-medical use of prescription stimulants has become more widespread, particularly among adolescents and young adults. Non-stimulants do not carry these risks.
Non-stimulants are not without drawbacks themselves, however. They typically take longer to work and have higher non-response rates, making them less suitable in situations where rapid results are essential. These limitations, however, do not justify relegating them to second-line status across the board.
This is a call for abandoning a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, future guidelines should present stimulant and non-stimulant medications as equally valid starting points, clearly outlining trade-offs related to onset, efficacy, misuse risk, and practical burden.
The evidence already supports this shift. The remaining challenge is aligning clinical practice and policy with what the data, and patient-centered care, are increasingly telling us.
_logo%201.svg)
