Search results

INTRODUCTION: The term neurodiversity is defined and discussed from the perspectives of neuroscience, psychology and campaigners with lived experience, illustrating the development of aetiological theories for included neurodevelopmental disorders. The emerging discourse is discussed with relevance to adults, social inclusion, occupational performance and the legislative obligations of organizations. SOURCES OF DATA: Literature is reviewed from medicine, psychiatry, psychology, sociology and popular press. No new data are presented in this article. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: There is consensus regarding some neurodevelopmental conditions being classed as neurominorities, with a 'spiky profile' of executive functions difficulties juxtaposed against neurocognitive strengths as a defining characteristic. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: The developing nomenclature is debated and the application of disability status versus naturally occurring difference. Diagnosis and legal protections vary geographically, resulting in heretofore unclear guidance for practitioners and employers. GROWING POINTS: The evolutionary critique of the medical model, recognizing and updating clinical approaches considering the emerging consensus and paradigmatic shift. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: It is recommended that research addresses more functional, occupational concerns and includes the experiences of stakeholders in research development, moving away from diagnosis and deficit towards multi-disciplinary collaboration within a biopsychosocial model.

The term neurodiversity is defined and discussed from the perspectives of neuroscience, psychology and campaigners with lived experience, illustrating the development of aetiological theories for included neurodevelopmental disorders. The emerging discourse is discussed with relevance to adults, social inclusion, occupational performance and the legislative obligations of organizations.

PurposeThe aims of the paper were to highlight the dearth of applied practitioner research concerning the expression of neurodiversity at work and develop an epistemological framework for a future research agenda.Design/methodology/approachA systematic empty review protocol was employed, with threea prioriresearch questions, inquiring as to the extent of neurodiversity research within mainstream work psychology, psychology in general and lastly within cross-disciplinary academic research. The results of the final search were quality checked and categorized to illustrate where studies relevant to practice are currently located.FindingsThe academic literature was found to be lacking in contextualized, practical advice for employers or employees. The location and foci of extracted studies highlighted a growing science-practitioner gap.Research limitations/implicationsThe research focused on common neurominority conditions such as autism and dyslexia; it is acknowledged that the neurodiversity definition itself is broader and more anthropological in nature. A need for a comprehensive research agenda is articulated, and research questions and frameworks are proposed.Practical implicationsGuidance is given on applying disability accommodation to both individual and organizational targets.Social implicationsThe disability employment gap is unchanged since legislation was introduced. The neurodiversity concept is no longer new, and it is time for multi-disciplinary collaborations across science and practice to address the questions raised in this paper.Originality/valueThis paper offers an original analysis of the neurodiversity paradox, combining systematic inquiry with a narrative synthesis of the extant literature. The conceptual clarification offers clear directions for researchers and practitioners.

Background: despite evidence-based national guidelines for ADHD in the United Kingdom (UK), ADHD is under-identified, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. Many seeking help for ADHD face prejudice, long waiting lists, and patchy or unavailable services, and are turning to service-user support groups and/or private healthcare for help. Methods: a group of UK experts representing clinical and healthcare providers from public and private healthcare, academia, ADHD patient groups, educational, and occupational specialists, met to discuss shortfalls in ADHD service provision in the UK. Discussions explored causes of under-diagnosis, examined biases operating across referral, diagnosis and treatment, together with recommendations for resolving these matters. Results: cultural and structural barriers operate at all levels of the healthcare system, resulting in a de-prioritization of ADHD. Services for ADHD are insufficient in many regions, and problems with service provision have intensified as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has established a range of adverse outcomes of untreated ADHD, and associated long-term personal, social, health and economic costs are high. The consensus group called for training of professionals who come into contact with people with ADHD, increased funding, commissioning and monitoring to improve service provision, and streamlined communication between health services to support better outcomes for people with ADHD. Conclusions: evidence-based national clinical guidelines for ADHD are not being met. People with ADHD should have access to healthcare free from discrimination, and in line with their legal rights. UK Governments and clinical and regulatory bodies must act urgently on this important public health issue.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Background: Despite evidence-based national guidelines for ADHD in the United Kingdom (UK), ADHD is under-identified, under-diagnosed, and under-treated. Many seeking help for ADHD face prejudice, long waiting lists, and patchy or unavailable services, and are turning to service-user support groups and/or private healthcare for help. Methods: A group of UK experts representing clinical and healthcare providers from public and private healthcare, academia, ADHD patient groups, educational, and occupational specialists, met to discuss shortfalls in ADHD service provision in the UK. Discussions explored causes of under-diagnosis, examined biases operating across referral, diagnosis and treatment, together with recommendations for resolving these matters. Young et al. Failure of ADHD Healthcare Provision Results: Cultural and structural barriers operate at all levels of the healthcare system, resulting in a de-prioritization of ADHD. Services for ADHD are insufficient in many regions, and problems with service provision have intensified as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Research has established a range of adverse outcomes of untreated ADHD, and associated long-term personal, social, health and economic costs are high. The consensus group called for training of professionals who come into contact with people with ADHD, increased funding, commissioning and monitoring to improve service provision, and streamlined communication between health services to support better outcomes for people with ADHD. Conclusions: Evidence-based national clinical guidelines for ADHD are not being met. People with ADHD should have access to healthcare free from discrimination, and in line with their legal rights. UK Governments and clinical and regulatory bodies must act urgently on this important public health issue. ; The meeting was jointly funded by the ADHD Foundation, the UK Adult ADHD Network (UKAAN), and the UK ADHD Partnership (UKAP). Other than reimbursement of travel expenses to attend the meeting, none of the authors received any financial compensation for attending the meeting or writing the manuscript, aside from CS who was remunerated for her time. PA was supported by NIHR Biomedical Research Center for Mental Health, NIHR/MRC (14/23/17) and NIHR senior investigator award (NF-SI-0616-10040). TN-D was funded by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship (NIHR300056). The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research or the Department of Health and Social Care. ; Peer Reviewed (ritrýnd grein)