A new study published in JAMA Psychiatry highlights the inconsistent use of the terms "neurodiversity" and "neurodivergence" in mental health research, which may obscure critical differences among various diagnoses and complicate the interpretation of findings. Researchers caution that the lack of specificity in using these terms could lead to uniform treatment approaches in clinical settings that fail to account for individual patient needs.
Read More
The paper reviewed 134 studies and revealed that the term "neurodivergence" was used inconsistently across multiple clinical diagnoses, including neurodevelopmental disorders like autism, ADHD, and dyslexia, as well as psychiatric conditions such as depression and anxiety. Notably, one in five studies employed the term without specifying a particular clinical diagnosis or defining it.
Dr. Alessio Bellato from the University of Southampton, the lead author of the study, stated that neuro-affirming language fosters inclusion and understanding of shared systemic barriers. While terms like "neurodiversity" and "neurodivergence" can be beneficial for exploring identity, using broad terms without precise definitions could obscure unique clinical patterns and mechanisms essential for advancing research.
The study emphasizes the distinct meanings of the terms: "neurodiversity" reflects the natural variability in brain function among individuals, while "neurodivergent" describes someone whose brain functioning diverges from the neurotypical norm, though how this divergence is defined remains unclear.
The terms have gained traction in recent years, inspired by advocacy for the rights of autistic individuals and those with mental health conditions. However, the rapid adoption has led to inconsistent and often incorrect usage of these terms.
Led by the University of Southampton, the research team, which included individuals with lived experience of neurodevelopmental or mental health conditions, analyzed data from studies involving over 151,000 participants. The findings noted that fifty studies allowed participants to self-identify as neurodivergent or neurodiverse, potentially increasing ambiguity. Additionally, fifty-six studies failed to define the terms clearly, and some used inaccurate definitions.
Professor Samuele Cortese, a senior author of the study, emphasized the need for precision in clinical studies. Without clear definitions, results may be difficult to interpret, especially if a study samples a group defined only as "neurodivergent" without further context. He stressed the significance of clear communication in patient care, stating that differing interpretations of terms like "neurodivergence" could lead to misunderstandings affecting the care provided to patients.