Introduction
Background information regarding diagnosis/impacts effects into college lifestyle etc.
Working Thesis: The holistic environment aiding to the misdiagnosis of ADHD created by the contemporary American medical community has long lasting effects extending into post graduate life.
Body Paragraphs:Bomb arguments
Conclusion
Body Paragraph 1: Primary Misdiagnosis
Body Paragraph 2: Future Impact (SUD’s)
Body Paragraph 3: Transition to College
Body Paragraph 4: Use in College
Body Paragraph 5: Medication
Topic Sentence: The proprietary misdiagnosis of children is aided by uncontrollable societal factors.
Evidence: Ford-Jones proposes that the relative difference in maturity of school age children gives a compelling argument for the focus of the study to be on that particular age group. Furthermore, the author insists this gap in age provides a grounds for misdiagnosis. Ford-Jones details the possible 20% difference in age gap during these key developmental years (Evans 657-73).
Analysis:The manner in which the American school system is organized encourages early misdiagnosis. Large gaps in age may make it seem as if certain pupils are lacking in development, contributing to environment of misdiagnosis.
Evidence: Ford-Jones raises an additional concern, citing “…the male:female prevalence ratio of ADHD has been shown to range from 3:1 up to 9:1” (Ford-Jones 3).
Analysis: The drastic difference in ADHD diagnosis’s, specifically concerning gender raises large concerns regarding the legitimacy of these diagnosis’s. Females are not necessarily less ADHD than males, energetic male behavior may be mistaken as ADHD.
Topic Sentence: Individuals with ADHD inherently become more susceptible to future substance use disorders which cause long lasting economic and societal effects.
Evidence: Lee asserts that the association between adolescent ADHD with future SUD’s must be examined due to “…the clinical and public health significance of substance disorders and the need to identify their early risk factors” (Lee 1).
Analysis:There is a significant economic interest in furthering correlational studies due to the 67 billion dollars lost due to substance use disorders in 2000, alone.
Evidence: The author found that “Children with ADHD were nearly three times more likely than children without ADHD to report nicotine dependence in adolescence/adulthood” (Lee 3). Lee also found that “children with ADHD were 1.7 times more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence than children without ADHD” (Lee 3). The author summarizes this correlation by concluding that the two and a half times greater likelihood of individuals with ADHD to develop SUD’s, strongly demonstrates the dangers this at risk group faces (Lee 3).
Analysis: ADHD diagnosis creates significant long term health interests. The very diagnosis of ADHD creates a statistical likelihood of substance dependence in humans.
Topic Sentence: The high school- college transition promotes a variety of unique issues for individuals with ADHD.
Evidence: Schaefer proposes that the increased demands and newfound freedom of college life cause negative academic consequences due to the inability of new students to manage their chronic disease (Schaefer 1).
Analysis: College environment creates holistic sense of freedom in new students. The abrupt change in treatment responsibility causes individuals to feel pressure to share medication, creating an environment of misuse.
Evidence: Most importantly, the transition to independence is “…a challenging experience” (Schaefer 4). The author asserts that the absence of key management skills sets these students up to fail. Furthermore, Lee highlights the peer pressure individuals with ADHD receive. Many students reported “…experiencing uncomfortable levels of pressure to share or sell their medication, particularly from friends and members of their own sorority/fraternity” (Schaefer 4). Also, the author highlights the impact inaccurate disease beliefs have on medication schedules. Many new students “…reported skipping medication to avoid its negative impact on their sleep, appetite, mood, or social functioning” (Schaefer 4).
Analysis: The blatant lack of regard students display for necessary strict medication regimens is eye opening. The overarching effect this has on the availability of illicit medication is astounding. The reason why these medications are so available, are due to the students distributing it themselves.
Topic Sentence: The illicit use of ADHD medication in undergraduate institutions has risen, particularly due to cultural acceptance of use.
Evidence: By surveying a total of 1550 undergraduate students, Advokat realized that “…591 (43%) reported using stimulant medications without a prescription” (Advokat 602).
Analysis: The meteoric rise in illicit attention medication consumption has risen dramatically. The rate of use is clearly highlighted in order to demonstrate the prevalence of illicit consumption. With prevalence comes acceptance, and susceptibility to addiction.
Evidence: The author concludes that the prevalence of illicit stimulant use is higher in colleges with highly competitive as opposed to less competitive admission standards due the academic pressures shouldered by these students (Advokat 604).
Analysis: Higher caliber academic institutions have an altered definition of success. It is deemed societally acceptable to utilize these drugs due to the academic pressures placed upon these students.
Topic Sentence: The prescription of intense, psychoactive, stimulant medication creates an environment which fosters future health problems.
Evidence: “a subgroup of undergraduates may engage in the risky behavior of recreational drug use in a sufficiently controlled manner that does not impair their academic performance” (Advokat 605).
Analysis: Certain individuals believe that they are not susceptible to addiction. This leads to a certain subset of individuals to lead poly drug lifestyles.
Evidence: Ford-Jones asserts that “…the long term effects of stimulants on children at this early developmental stage are unknown” (Ford-Jones 4)
Analysis: Since we do not know the long term health consequences of prescribing stimulant medication, there should be concern when prescribing these drugs.