Category: young people
Understanding and Treating ADHD
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is one of the most prevalent neurodevelopmental disorders in children and adolescents. Characterized by persistent symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity that do not align with a child’s developmental stage, ADHD can significantly impact academic performance, social relationships, family dynamics, and self-esteem. The early detection and treatment of ADHD are vital to ensuring a child’s successful development and functioning across these various domains.
ADHD typically emerges in early childhood and persists for at least six months. While symptoms often extend into adolescence and adulthood, the disorder must be observed in two or more settings—such as school and home—to confirm a diagnosis. Studies suggest that ADHD has a strong genetic component, with environmental influences playing a contributing role. Neuroimaging and neuropsychological research have linked the condition to dysfunctions in the prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and cerebellum—areas of the brain involved in executive functions, working memory, and temporal processing.
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) classifies ADHD into three main presentations: combined (both inattentive and hyperactive-impulsive symptoms), predominantly inattentive, and predominantly hyperactive-impulsive. Each of these requires a specific symptom threshold: at least six symptoms for children and five for individuals aged 17 and older. Symptoms must be chronic and not better explained by other conditions such as oppositional defiant disorder or intellectual difficulties.
To assist in diagnosis, a symptom recording format has been suggested to capture specific behaviors and their consequences across various environments. The severity of ADHD is classified as mild, moderate, or severe based on symptom number and the extent of functional impairment.
A thorough evaluation for ADHD includes a detailed clinical history covering medical, psychiatric, academic, and family backgrounds. Both direct and indirect observations of the child’s behavior in multiple settings are essential, often involving questionnaires and structured interviews with parents and teachers. Physical examinations help rule out other medical causes, such as vision or hearing problems, anemia, or thyroid dysfunction. Intelligence testing can help differentiate ADHD from intellectual disabilities, while neuropsychological assessments provide insight into executive functioning, attention, and memory. Additional tools such as EEG, MRI, or genetic testing may be employed to rule out epilepsy or brain abnormalities. Emotional assessments are also critical to identify anxiety or depression that may mimic or coexist with ADHD symptoms.
Given the symptomatic overlap with other disorders, differential diagnosis is essential. Generalized anxiety disorder, for example, involves persistent worries and physiological symptoms, while depressive disorders manifest primarily through mood disturbances and low energy. Bipolar disorder includes mood swings and grandiosity, which differ from the impulsivity seen in ADHD. Specific learning disorders, conduct disorder, and oppositional defiant disorder also require careful differentiation. Notably, ADHD can co-occur with these conditions, necessitating a nuanced diagnostic approach.
Once a diagnosis is confirmed, psychoeducation is often the first step in treatment. This involves educating the child and their family about ADHD, including its causes, symptoms, possible comorbidities, treatment options, and long-term outcomes. Psychoeducation dispels myths and builds a foundation of understanding and collaboration between families and healthcare providers, guiding them toward appropriate resources and professionals.
Behavioral therapy is another central component of treatment. For children, the goal is to enhance social skills such as self-control, patience, emotional regulation, and effective communication. Positive behaviors are reinforced through praise and rewards, while disruptive behaviors are managed using techniques like time-out or overcorrection. For parents, behavioral training helps them establish consistent boundaries, structured routines, and empathetic support strategies that promote better home environments and reduce stress.
Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) focuses on enhancing self-regulation and problem-solving skills by teaching children to use internal speech and self-instructions. Through a progressive process, children learn to guide themselves through tasks by first hearing instructions from an adult, then repeating them aloud, and eventually internalizing them. CBT can help children plan, set goals, and manage impulses more effectively.
Cognitive rehabilitation, meanwhile, addresses specific deficits in attention, memory, and other cognitive functions. This therapeutic approach aims to improve the child’s overall cognitive performance and can be tailored to individual needs.
Pharmacological treatment is generally considered when symptoms are severe or when non-pharmacological approaches prove insufficient. The choice to use medication depends on factors such as symptom intensity, age, presence of comorbid conditions, previous treatment responses, and the child’s adherence to therapy. Medications are broadly categorized into stimulants and non-stimulants. Stimulants, like methylphenidate, act on dopamine pathways and are available in various formulations. Non-stimulants, such as atomoxetine and guanfacine, target noradrenaline metabolism and are often used when stimulant medications are contraindicated. It is generally recommended to combine pharmacological treatment with behavioral and psychological therapies to ensure a more comprehensive approach to managing ADHD.
In conclusion, ADHD is a complex, multifaceted disorder requiring a careful and comprehensive approach to diagnosis and treatment. Understanding its presentations, underlying neurological basis, and symptomatology is crucial for early intervention and effective management. Collaboration among healthcare providers, educators, and families plays a key role in creating supportive environments where children with ADHD can thrive. Importantly, a diagnosis of ADHD should not be seen as a limitation but rather as a foundation for tailored support that nurtures a child’s strengths and potential.
The Hidden Link: How Problematic Social Media Use and Social Stress Drive Cyber-Victimization in Adolescents
In today’s digital world, social media use among adolescents is almost universal, but its darker implications are still unfolding. A recent study titled “Problematic Social Media Use and Conflict, Social Stress, and Cyber-Victimization Among Early Adolescents” by Shongha Kim, Rachel Garthe, Wan-Jung Hsieh, and Jun Sung Hong explores the complex relationship between problematic social media behavior and the rising tide of cyber-victimization among youth. Drawing on the Social Information Processing (SIP) model, the research focuses on how social stress mediates the link between problematic use and cyberbullying, providing timely insight into a pervasive and increasingly harmful issue.
The study targets early adolescents, particularly sixth graders, during a formative period in their development when they are gaining autonomy, navigating changing peer dynamics, and interacting more through digital platforms. While previous studies have shown that the amount of time spent on social media correlates with increased risk of cyber-victimization, Kim and her colleagues shift the lens from frequency of use to the quality and nature of social media engagement. Specifically, they examine Problematic Social Media Use and Conflict (PSMUC)—a term that encompasses negative behaviors and outcomes stemming from excessive preoccupation with social media, such as arguments with family and friends, school troubles, and lost relationships.
This shift in focus is critical. Time alone does not tell the full story of adolescents’ online behavior. The conflicts and emotional turbulence generated by problematic usage offer a more nuanced explanation for why some adolescents are more vulnerable to cyber-victimization than others. The research demonstrates that adolescents caught in cycles of social media-related conflict may experience elevated levels of social stress—feelings of exclusion, loneliness, and isolation—which in turn makes them more likely to be targeted online.
The researchers collected data from 316 sixth-grade students at a large public middle school in the Midwestern United States. The students were diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, and economic background. Using structural equation modeling, the study tested three main hypotheses: whether certain demographic groups reported higher rates of cyber-victimization and PSMUC; whether higher levels of PSMUC were linked to increased social stress and cyber-victimization; and whether social stress mediated the relationship between PSMUC and cyber-victimization.
The findings were illuminating. Roughly 29% of the students reported experiencing some form of cyber-victimization from someone at school. PSMUC was significantly associated with both increased social stress and cyber-victimization. Furthermore, the researchers confirmed a mediating effect: adolescents with higher PSMUC were more likely to report feelings of social stress, which in turn increased their risk of being cyberbullied. This indirect pathway underlines the central premise of the SIP model—that emotional and cognitive responses to social conflicts can alter how youth perceive and react to future social interactions, potentially setting them up for victimization.
The study also uncovered notable demographic trends. White students reported higher levels of social stress, while non-White students showed higher PSMUC levels. Those receiving free or reduced-price lunch (a marker of economic disadvantage) were more likely to report both cyber-victimization and problematic social media behavior. Interestingly, gender and ethnicity did not yield significant differences in mean-level analyses, though in the structural model, male students were less likely to report cyber-victimization.
These findings carry substantial implications for schools, mental health professionals, and families. First, they challenge the notion that simply limiting screen time is enough to prevent online harm. Instead, they suggest that the quality of online interactions and the conflicts that stem from social media use deserve greater scrutiny. The findings also urge school social workers, counselors, and psychologists to pay closer attention to social stress as a red flag for deeper problems. By identifying students struggling with PSMUC and intervening early, professionals can potentially disrupt the chain of events leading to cyber-victimization.
Moreover, the study critiques the idea of restricting social media as a blanket solution. Rather than policing digital behavior, schools and families should focus on empowering adolescents. Teaching them about privacy settings, conflict resolution, and healthy communication online could be more effective strategies. Interventions should not only address behavior but also the emotional landscape that underlies it. For instance, programs that build emotional resilience, peer support, and inclusive school climates may reduce the feelings of isolation that make young people targets.
Family involvement is another critical point raised by the authors. Since many conflicts originate at home—arguments over device use, strained parent-child communication—supporting parents in setting healthy boundaries and engaging in open conversations with their children about social media may be a key part of prevention. Encouraging shared understanding rather than punishment could defuse tensions and foster healthier relationships.
Of course, the study is not without limitations. It is based on self-reported data from a single middle school in a semi-urban area, which may limit the generalizability of its findings. Additionally, the cross-sectional design does not allow for conclusions about causality or changes over time. Future research would benefit from longitudinal designs that follow students over several years, allowing researchers to see how problematic behavior, social stress, and victimization evolve together.
Despite these limitations, the study offers a compelling argument that understanding adolescent cyber-victimization requires a shift in perspective. It’s not just about time spent online, but the interpersonal conflicts and psychological distress that often accompany problematic usage. By addressing the emotional fallout of PSMUC—particularly the social stress that can leave adolescents isolated and vulnerable—educators, clinicians, and parents can work together to create a safer, more supportive digital environment for youth.
The research by Kim and her colleagues provides a vital roadmap for future prevention efforts. It reinforces the importance of viewing adolescent digital behavior through a relational and emotional lens. Addressing the deeper issues of social stress and problematic usage patterns may be the key to stemming the tide of cyber-victimization, ultimately promoting healthier, more connected youth both online and offline.
Beyond Barriers 