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.
July 14, 2026
Language is powerful. The words we choose not only reflect our understanding of the world but also actively shape it. Recently, this truth has been at the center of a growing debate in the mental health field regarding how we talk about ADHD.
In a recent paper published in The Lancet Psychiatry titled “The Power of Words: Respectful Language in ADHD Research,” French and colleagues advocated for a shift toward "neurodiversity-affirmative language”. Rooted in the social model of disability, their proposal encourages researchers to abandon traditional medical terminology, e.g., words like disorder and deficit, in favor of more neutral terms such as condition and challenge.
My colleague, Dr. Michael Miller, and I read this with great interest. We completely agree that revising language is essential to good science and that, both as researchers and as human beings, we are ethically bound to speak respectfully. However, we felt compelled to write a response. In our new paper, we argue that while language must evolve, it must do so scientifically.
The Two Prerequisites for Language Change
If we are going to fundamentally shift our scientific lexicon, two requirements must be met:
Currently, the proposal by French and colleagues meets neither requirement. While they claim consensus is accumulating that certain terms are disrespectful, they provide zero empirical evidence that this view is shared by the community of individuals living with ADHD. Even proponents of patient-centered language admit there is surprisingly little data supporting specific language changes.
More alarmingly, the recommended changes severely dilute the scientific accuracy of our field. Let’s look at two examples.
Why a "Deficit" is Not Just a “Challenge"
French and colleagues suggest replacing the term deficit with challenge. On the surface, challenge sounds softer and more affirming. But scientifically, these words are not interchangeable.
For decades, the term deficit has been defined by a specific performance metric that falls substantially below an expected level. It is a measurable reality. A challenge, on the other hand, refers to a new or difficult task that tests someone's ability.
Every single human being is "challenged" by complex neuropsychological tests, but only some individuals who face that challenge demonstrate scientifically significant deficits. If we relabel measurable deficits as universal challenges, we sacrifice the exactness required to communicate scientific findings and accurately measure the effects of life-changing treatments.
ADHD is a Disorder, Not Just a "Condition"
Another proposal is to replace the word disorder with condition.
In mainstream psychiatry, a disorder is a clinically significant disturbance that causes distress or disability. The word purposefully separates natural human variation from the suffering (pathos) that gives pathology its meaning.
Condition is a completely neutral term. Pregnancy is a condition. Being tall is a condition. Calling ADHD a condition distances the diagnosis from the profound suffering it can cause.
French et al. argue against framing ADHD as a disorder because it exists on a spectrum without a clear cutoff, its manifestation is context-dependent, and its definition evolves. But if we apply that logic across all of medicine, the concept of disease unravels:
The Real-World Danger of Imprecise Language
This is not merely an academic debate over semantics. The language we use has real-world implications. In the United States and across the globe, our healthcare, educational, and legal systems run on precise medical language. Terms like impairment, dysfunction, and disorder are legally and administratively required to justify support services, workplace accommodations, specialized educational therapies, and medications. The language of pathology in diagnostic manuals regulates the flow of these resources.
If we reclassify ADHD as a neutral condition characterized only by challenges, we risk erecting massive bureaucratic barriers. Imprecise language could easily be used by institutions or insurance companies to deny vital care to the people who need it most.
The Need for Lexical Discipline
Attempting to characterize a clinical disorder entirely through its strengths happens in a scientific vacuum. We cannot ignore the vast body of rigorous evidence confirming that ADHD meets the long-standing criteria used by mental health science to identify clinical disorders.
As professionals, our respect for the ADHD community demands a commitment to language that is clear, correct, and evidence-based. To build genuine consensus about how we talk about ADHD, we need meaningful, collaborative dialogue that integrates compelling empirical data and rigorous theory.
This standard of "lexical discipline" is not just a technical preference. It is a vital mechanism through which science and the mental health professions uphold their duty to society.
Faraone S, Miller M Precision language in ADHD research; The Lancet Psychiatry, 2026
https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(26)00117-3
French, B ∙ Dekkers, TJ ∙ Barclay, I ∙ et al. The power of words: respectful language in ADHD research. Lancet Psychiatry. 2025; 12:876-879
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.
A cohort study looked at over five million adults, and over 850,000 children between the ages of five and eleven, who received care at Kaiser Permanente Northern California during the ten-year period from the beginning of 2007 through the end of 2016. At any given time, KPNC serves roughly four million persons. It is representative of the population of the region, except for the highest and lowest income strata.
Among adults rates of ADHD diagnosis rose from 0.43% to 0.96%. Among children the diagnosis rates rose from 2.96% to 3.74%, ending up almost four times as high as for adults.
Non-Hispanic whites had the highest adult rates throughout, increasing from 0.67% in 2007 to 1.42% in 2016. American Indian or Alaska Native (AIAN) had the second highest rates, rising from 0.56% to 1.14%. Blacks and Hispanics had roughly comparable rates of diagnosis, the former rising from 0.22% to 0.69%, the latter from 0.25% to 0.65%. The lowest rates were among Asians (rising from 0.11% to 0.35%) and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islanders (increasing from 0.11% to 0.39%).
Odds of diagnosis dropped steeply with age among adults. Relative to 18-24-year-olds, 25-34-year-olds were 1/6th less likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, 35-44-year-olds 1/3rd less likely, 45-54-year-olds less than half as likely, 55-64-year-olds less than a quarter as likely, and those over 65 about a twentieth as likely. This is consistent with other studies reporting and age dependent decline in the diagnosis.
Adults with the highest levels of education were twice as likely to be diagnosed as those with the lowest levels. But variations in median household income had almost no effect. Women were marginally less likely to be diagnosed than men.
ADHD is associated with some other psychiatric disorders. Compared with normally developing adults, and adjusted for confounders, those with ADHD were five times as likely to have an eating disorder, over four times as likely to be diagnosed with bipolar disorder or depression, more than twice as likely to suffer from anxiety, but only slightly more likely to abuse drugs or alcohol.
The authors speculate that rising rates of diagnosis could reflect increasing recognition of ADHD in adults by physicians and other clinicians as well as growing public awareness of ADHD during the decade under study. Turning to the strong differences among ethnicities, they note, Racial/ethnic differences could also reflect differential rates of treatment seeking or access to care. Racial/ethnic background is known to play an important role in opinions on mental health services, health care utilization, and physician preferences. In addition, rates of diagnosis- seeking to obtain stimulant medication for nonmedical use may be more common among white vs nonwhite patients. They conclude, greater consideration must be placed on cultural influences on health care seeking and delivery, along with an increased understanding of the various social, psychological, and biological differences among races/ethnicities as well as culturally sensitive approaches to identify and treat ADHD in the total population.
But the main take home message of this work is that most cases of ADHD in adults are not being diagnosed by clinicians. We know from population studies, worldwide, that about three percent of adults suffer from the disorder. This study found that less than 1 percent are diagnosed by their doctors. Clearly, more education is needed to teach clinicians how to identify, diagnose and treat ADHD in adults.
The diagnosis of ADHD should only be done by a licensed clinician, and that clinician should have one goal in mind: to plan a safe and effective course of evidence-based treatment. The infographic gives a summary of this diagnostic approach which my colleagues and I prepared for our "Primer" about ADHD,http://rdcu.be/gYyV. A key point that parents of ADHD youth and adults with ADHD should keep in mind is that there is only one way to diagnose ADHD.An expert clinician must document the criteria for the disorder as specified by either the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association, which is now in its fifth edition (DSM-5), or the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10). The two sets of criteria are nearly identical. These criteria are most commonly applied by a clinician asking questions of the parent (for children) and/or patient (for adolescents and adults).For children, information from the teacher can be useful. Some clinicians get this information by having the parent ask the teacher to fill out a rating scale. This information can be very useful if it is available. When diagnosing adults, it is also useful to collect information from a significant other, which can be a parent for young adults or a spouse for older adults. But when such informants are not available, diagnosing ADHD based on the patient's self-report is valid. As the infographic indicates, any diagnosis of ADHD should also assess for comorbid psychiatric disorders, as these have implications for which ADHD medications will be safe and effective. And because a prior history of cardiovascular disease or seizures frequently contraindicate stimulants. These must also be assessed.
Antidepressants are the primary drug treatment for depressive disorders, which affect 15–20% of pregnant women. They are among the most widely prescribed medications worldwide, and their use has increased in recent decades. Understanding their reproductive safety is critical to support informed, evidence-based prescribing during pregnancy.
A new meta-analysis sheds important light on one of the most debated concerns: whether children born to mothers who took antidepressants during pregnancy face a higher risk of ADHD.
The Study:
Pooling 14 studies covering more than 14 million participants, the analysis found that prenatal antidepressant exposure was associated with a 35% higher rate of ADHD in offspring compared to no exposure. A separate look at SSRIs (the most widely prescribed class of antidepressants, including Prozac and Zoloft) across 11 studies and over four million pregnancies found an even higher apparent risk (44%) after correcting for publication bias. On the surface, these are striking numbers.
Both associations came with an important caveat: enormous variation between individual studies, a statistical red flag suggesting the results may not reflect a true underlying effect. More tellingly, the apparent risk evaporated entirely when researchers applied a more rigorous method — comparing siblings within the same family, where one child was exposed to antidepressants in the womb, and another was not.
This sibling-comparison design is particularly powerful because it automatically controls for factors that run in families: shared genes, household environment, parenting, and socioeconomic conditions. When those influences are held constant, the link between antidepressant exposure and ADHD disappears. The same pattern held for SSRIs specifically.
Two other antidepressant classes, SNRIs (serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors) and tricyclics, showed no significant association in any analysis.
“Confounding by Indication”:
The probable driver of the initial association is what researchers call confounding by indication. The very condition being treated (depression) is itself a risk factor for ADHD in offspring, independently of any medication. Mothers with more severe depression are also more likely to be prescribed antidepressants, meaning the drug and the underlying illness are difficult to disentangle in standard analyses. Sibling studies cut through this problem cleanly.
The Take-Away:
The authors concluded that the association between antidepressants and ADHD risk was non-significant across all analyses designed to account for these confounding factors. This doesn’t mean antidepressants are without any reproductive considerations, but it does suggest that ADHD risk, at least, is driven by heritable and family-level factors rather than medication exposure itself.
For clinicians and patients weighing the risks of treating or not treating depression during pregnancy, this distinction matters considerably.
Executive functions are the mental processes that allow us to plan, adapt, and follow through. This encompasses working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, goal-directed planning, and problem-solving. In people with ADHD, weaknesses in these areas compound the disorder's core symptoms, making it substantially harder to manage complex, real-world demands.
Background:
Medication remains the frontline clinical response. Stimulant medications can meaningfully reduce both executive function deficits and ADHD symptoms, and are often combined with behavioral or psychological therapies for better overall outcomes.
Medication, however, is not entirely without risk of side effects. These risks have spurred interest in new, non-pharmacological alternatives that target the same neural pathways. One of these new therapies is Computerized Cognitive Remediation Therapy (CCRT). This therapy uses digital programs delivered via computer, tablet, or smartphone that train attention, memory, and inhibitory control through structured cognitive exercises. A key feature of many CCRT platforms is adaptive difficulty: tasks adjust in real time to match the child’s current ability, keeping training both challenging and engaging.
The Study:
Despite this promise, the evidence base in younger populations has been limited. This meta-analysis pooled results from randomized controlled trials enrolling participants under 18 who either carried an ADHD diagnosis or scored above the threshold on a validated rating scale. Comparators included no treatment (waitlist), placebo (pharmacological or psychological), or treatment as usual. The primary outcomes (overall executive function and clinical symptom severity) were assessed via questionnaires and neuropsychological testing. Studies including participants with comorbid autism, tic disorders, epilepsy, or other psychiatric conditions were excluded.
The findings were informative, but overall results were mixed. CCRT produced a small but statistically meaningful reduction in inattention symptoms across 13 studies (885 participants), with consistent results across individual trials and no evidence of publication bias. However, it had no detectable effect on hyperactivity and impulsivity (12 studies, 833 participants) or on total ADHD symptom burden (10 studies, 731 participants).
The picture was more encouraging for executive function. Nine studies (500 participants) showed small overall improvements, with specific gains in working memory (454 participants), inhibitory control (428 participants), and planning (6 studies, 335 participants). Emotional control showed no significant change (5 studies, 265 participants), nor did cognitive flexibility (4 studies, 189 participants).
The Take-Away:
Taken together, these results are modest rather than transformative, but context matters. CCRT is low-cost, digitally scalable, and carries negligible side effects. For a population where medication often comes with a significant burden of adverse reactions, even small, reliable improvements in executive function represent a meaningful clinical option.
The evidence positions CCRT not as a replacement for established treatments, but as a practical and well-tolerated addition to the therapeutic toolkit for children and adolescents with ADHD.
Methylphenidate is an effective treatment for ADHD in adults who also have bipolar disorder (BD), but it carries a potential risk of triggering manic episodes. Current guidelines therefore recommend using it only alongside mood-stabilizing medication. A new study using French nationwide claims data sought to test and extend those recommendations with greater statistical power than previous research.
The study built on findings by Viktorin et al. (2017), who observed that adults with BD not taking mood stabilizers had more than a sixfold higher risk of manic events (defined as hospitalization for mania or a new antimanic prescription) within six months of starting methylphenidate. Patients on mood-stabilizing treatment, by contrast, showed nearly half the baseline risk in the first three months. Those findings were limited, however, by small event counts (fewer than 61 manic episodes) and an effect that did not persist beyond the initial three-month window.
To build on this, researchers drew on the French National Health Data System (which is a claims database covering more than 60 million people) spanning 2008 to 2024. The final sample included 6,022 adults with BD (56% women) who had started methylphenidate. Using a self-controlled design, the study compared each patient's rate of manic events in the six months before their first methylphenidate prescription with the rate in the six months after, effectively eliminating stable individual differences as a confound.
Patients were classified as receiving continuous mood-stabilizing treatment if they had been dispensed at least two courses of specific antipsychotics (aripiprazole, olanzapine, or quetiapine) or mood stabilizers (lithium or valproate) in the nine months before starting methylphenidate, including at least one dispensation in the final six months of that window.
The results largely confirmed the earlier findings. Among the 2,745 patients not on mood stabilizers, the rate of inpatient mania diagnosis was 5.1 times higher in the first three months after starting methylphenidate, though this elevation fell to a non-significant level over the subsequent three months. Patients receiving continuous mood-stabilizing treatment showed no statistically significant change in mania risk across the full six-month post-initiation period. A formulation-specific pattern also emerged: patients without mood-stabilizing treatment had a 2.5-fold higher risk associated with extended-release methylphenidate, while no significant risk increase was seen with the immediate-release formulation or in treated patients regardless of formulation.
The authors conclude that methylphenidate at doses below 30 mg does not appear to elevate manic relapse risk when prescribed alongside mood stabilizers. The elevated risk seen in untreated patients, particularly with extended-release formulations, must be interpreted cautiously, given limited statistical power and the likelihood that it partly reflects the natural fluctuation of manic relapse over time. The authors flag this as an inherent limitation of self-controlled survival analyses when studying drug-induced mania, where temporal trends in the underlying condition can be difficult to disentangle from treatment effects.
_logo%201.svg)
