4.6 Article

Dysregulated not deficit: A qualitative study on symptomatology of ADHD in young adults

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292721

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study used qualitative methods to explore ADHD symptomatology in young adults, particularly regarding attentional and emotional dysregulation. It found that the current diagnostic criteria for ADHD may not accurately capture the range of symptoms present in young adults, and that changing environments and behavioral adaptations may influence symptom presentation into adulthood.
Objective Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common condition that often persists into adulthood, although data suggest that the current diagnostic criteria may not represent how the condition presents in adults. We aimed to use qualitative methods to better understand ADHD symptomatology in young adults, especially regarding attentional and emotional dysregulation. Methods Nine focus groups involving young adults (aged 18-35 years; N = 43; 84% female; 86% US and Canada) with diagnoses of ADHD were conducted. Participants were asked about their perceptions of the current diagnostic criteria and how their symptoms have presented and changed over time. Data were analyzed using an interpretive phenomenological analysis framework. Results Most participants reported that the diagnostic criteria did not accurately capture their experiences with ADHD. They reported struggling with attention dysregulation, including hyperfocusing, and emotional dysregulation, including rejection-sensitive dysphoria. Many participants believed that their changing environments and behavioral adaptations influenced how their symptoms presented into adulthood. Conclusion Current diagnostic criteria for ADHD may not capture the range of symptoms present in young adults. More research is needed to characterize attentional and emotional dysregulation in this population.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据