Study Maps Clinical Diagnoses Linked to Neurodiversity and Neurodivergence in Mental Health Research
Overview of Neurodiversity and Neurodivergence in Clinical Research
The concepts of neurodiversity and neurodivergence have gained traction in mental health research, clinical practice, and policy discussions. However, these terms lack precise clinical or diagnostic definitions, which may affect how research studies classify and interpret participant characteristics.
New Scoping Review Analyzes Diagnostic Associations
A recent scoping review published in JAMA Psychiatry aimed to quantitatively map the clinical diagnoses associated with neurodiversity and neurodivergence within empirical mental health literature. The review was conducted following rigorous methods, including the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. It incorporated expert input from individuals with lived experience.
The researchers searched multiple databases—PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and PsycINFO—up to August 1, 2025. They identified 134 studies encompassing a total of 151,134 participants who were described as neurodivergent or neurodiverse.
Key Findings on Diagnoses and Identification Methods
The majority of participants were identified either through self-reported clinical diagnoses (41.8%) or by self-identification as neurodivergent or neurodiverse (37.3%). The studies revealed a diverse spectrum of clinical conditions linked to these terms. The most frequently reported diagnoses included:
- Autism spectrum disorder (68.7% of studies)
- Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (64.2%)
- Dyslexia (32.8%)
- Dyspraxia (15.7%)
- Anxiety disorders (14.9%)
- Dyscalculia (12.7%)
Interestingly, 21.6% of the studies did not specify any clinical diagnoses, reflecting the broad and sometimes ambiguous use of these terms.
Implications for Research and Clinical Practice
The review’s authors highlight that while neurodiversity and neurodivergence are valuable frameworks for acknowledging lived experiences, their imprecision can introduce significant heterogeneity in research focused on clinical categories. This variability may complicate efforts to draw clear conclusions or develop targeted interventions based on these broad terms.
Consequently, the researchers suggest that clinical practice and research involving clearly defined conditions should prioritize precise diagnostic terminology. Conversely, the term “neurodivergent” may be more appropriate in contexts emphasizing self-identification and identity rather than strict clinical categorization.
Considerations for Families and Caregivers
For families and caregivers, understanding that neurodiversity and neurodivergence encompass a wide range of conditions and experiences is important. These terms reflect personal and social identities as much as clinical diagnoses. When seeking support or services, clear diagnostic information remains crucial to accessing appropriate care and interventions.
Limitations and Future Directions
The review underscores the need for further research to clarify how neurodiversity-related terms are operationalized in studies and clinical settings. Greater consistency in definitions and diagnostic reporting can help improve the quality and applicability of research findings.
For more detailed information, the full study is available here.
Download the images in this article
