What Can Adults With ADHD Tell Us About Their Experiences? A Review of Qualitative Methods to Map a New Research Agenda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although ADHD has its roots in childhood, significant symptoms persist into adulthood for more than half of individuals. Adults with ADHD are heterogeneous in terms of symptom presentations, impairment domains, and relative strengths. Consequently, it is essential to better understand the diverse self-perceptions and experiences of adults with ADHD; qualitative methods are a valuable complement to quantitative work in this area. Our aim is to provide a scoping review of qualitative studies on adults with ADHD to articulate the current status of the field and establish future research directions. METHOD: We review 41 studies, separating findings into four subpopulations: (1) adults with childhood ADHD, (2) college students with ADHD, (3) adults diagnosed with ADHD in adulthood, and (4) other studies (unspecified age of diagnosis). RESULTS: Qualitative research on all four subgroups identifies recurring themes: substance use, decisions about medication for ADHD, perceived domains of impairment, factors that promote or hinder success, and concerns about identity and stigma. Notably, the relative emphasis of each theme varies as a function of sample type. Specifically, qualitative research among adults with a childhood ADHD diagnosis focuses principally on substance use and treatment desistance, whereas studies of individuals diagnosed with ADHD as adults often examine emotional responses to receiving the diagnosis. For college students with ADHD, themes frequently relate to struggles with the increased independence demanded by post-secondary educational environments and the adoption of accommodations or coping strategies. For future studies of adult ADHD, we highlight key domains for which mixed-methods strategies will be critical: (a) similarities and differences between multiple reporters of functioning, (b) willingness to receive treatment, (c) women, (d) participants from diverse racial and ethnic groups, and (e) middle age and older adults. CONCLUSION: In all, we highlight the value of qualitative and mixed-methods approaches to ensure that research captures the beliefs, intentions, experiences, emotions, and self-perspectives of people with ADHD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".