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.
April 4, 2022
What are we to make of adults who exhibit the diagnostic criteria for ADHD, but are nevertheless high-functioning and successful? A trio of British investigators has just published six case studies that explore this question. It would have been better for them to have conducted a much larger, controlled research study but, in the absence of such data in the area, these case studies are intriguing and may help guide more informative research.
The authors recruited six successful men between the ages of 30 and 65 from a National Health Service tertiary service in London. Four were in long-term relationships, with children. All had good jobs.
In open-ended taped interviews of up to an hour in length, each was asked three questions:
1. What do you think are the advantages and disadvantages of having ADHD?
2. Please describe a time when you felt that your ADHD helped you to achieve something?
3. What aspects of your ADHD would you miss if it went away?
Hyper-focus in ADHD is generally considered a deficit, inset-shifting, and task-switching. But the authors report that participants associated it with productivity. One said, “I think the energy that the ADHD brain seems to have....it’s unfocused, quite scattered, chaotic and a bit random...but give that brain something that you can tune into, and it’s your interest, then all that random stuff just goes boom... I get this incredible intense concentration and that’s great for work.”
Participants also saw advantages in divergent thinking, with one stating, “I’m an artist.... a creative type... a Bohemian.... you are most likely to be a creative person if you are a divergent thinker....and not convergent... I am very creative and that’s through and through... I’m a fine art graduate, a musician, a published poet, an entrepreneur, a performer.”
All the participants reported being seen as nonconformists. Depending on a viewpoint, that can be seen as either detrimental or advantageous.
Impulsivity is a core symptom of ADHD. Participants however related it to bravery, and more specifically adventurousness, spontaneity, and thrill-seeking. One said, “thrill-seeking is an ADHD thing... I can list in my life have done white water rafting, bungee jumping, hand-glider pilot … I have done a lot in my life and achieved a lot and experienced a lot... Furthermore, I would see a lot of that as being quite positive, and a lot of that is ADHD drive.”
Another common theme was high energy and “spirit.” One participant said, “I’ve got all this energy.... a lot of energy... whatever it's to do with... nature/nurture/spiritual stuff.”
These testimonials are useful as a check on the usual narrative of impairment. ADHD does not predestine all it afflicts to an unfulfilling life. Many, often assisted by medication, still lead exciting, successful, rewarding lives. Yet, we must be cautious in concluding that these individuals were successful because of their ADHD. It is possible, even likely, that they had other strengths such as high intelligence that compensated for their ADHD symptoms. We can not know from this report if their lives had been even more fulfilling or successful in the absence of ADHD. See, for example, my blog about highly intelligent people with ADHD: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141126141502-65669938-smart-people-can-have-adhd-too/.
While the authors concede that “generalizing the findings of this study is not easy to do,” they inexplicably “also argue that the positive aspects we found are relevant to other adults with ADHD regardless of sample size, age, gender or ethnicity.” It is not possible to draw such a definitive conclusion without a much larger sample.
On a hopeful note, they conclude, “This is a study that reaches out to people with lived experience of ADHD: service users, patients, family members, carers, partners, to say that not all symptoms of ADHD are maleficent. Recovery, high functionality, and flourishing with ADHD are possible. Too often people with lived experience hear about ADHD deficits, functional impairments, and associations with substance misuse, criminality, or other disadvantages on almost every level of life (school, work, relationships). … This study affirms the positive human qualities, assets, and attributes in ADHD that can promote and sustain high functioning and flourishing.” I fully endorse the idea that those with ADHD can have wonderful lives, especially if they receive appropriate treatment, both medical and psychological.
Jane Ann Sedgwick, Andrew Merwood, Philip Asherson, “The positive aspects of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a qualitative investigation of successful adults with ADHD,” ADHD Attention Deficit and hyperactivity Disorders (2018), doi.org/10.1007/s12402-018-0277-6.
Antshel, K. M., Faraone, S. V., Maglione, K., Doyle, A. E., Fried, R., Seidman, L. J. & Biederman, J. (2010). Executive functioning in high-IQ adults with ADHD. Psychol Med 40, 1909-18.
Rommelse, N., Antshel, K., Smeets, S., Greven, C.,Hoogeveen, L., Faraone, S. V. & Hartman, C. A. (2017). High intelligenceand the risk of ADHD and other psychopathology. Br J Psychiatry.
Rommelse, N., van der Kruijs, M., Damhuis, J., Hoek,I., Smeets, S., Antshel, K. M., Hoogeveen, L. & Faraone, S. V. (2016). Anevidenced-based perspective on the validity of attention-deficit/hyperactivitydisorder in the context of high intelligence. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 71, 21-47.
Stimulant medications, such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and amphetamines (Adderall), are among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. In the United States alone, prescription rates have climbed more than 50% over the past decade, driven largely by growing awareness of ADHD in both children and adults. Yet stimulants also have a long history of non-medical use, and concerns about their psychological risks persist among patients, families, and clinicians alike.
Two major studies now offer the clearest picture yet of what that risk actually looks like, and who it may affect.
The Background:
Before turning to the research, it helps to understand the landscape. A notable share of stimulant users misuse their medication: roughly one in four takes it in ways other than prescribed, and about one in eleven meets criteria for Prescription Stimulant Use Disorder (PSUD). Counterintuitively, most people with PSUD aren’t obtaining drugs illicitly — they’re misusing their own prescriptions.
This distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic use turns out to be critical when evaluating psychosis risk.
The Study:
A comprehensive meta-analysis by Jangra and colleagues pooled data across more than a dozen studies to compare psychotic outcomes in people using stimulants therapeutically versus non-therapeutically. The contrast was striking.
Among therapeutic users (more than 220,000 individuals taking stimulants at prescribed doses under medical supervision), psychotic episodes occurred in roughly one in five hundred people. When symptoms did appear, they typically emerged after prolonged treatment or in individuals with pre-existing psychiatric vulnerabilities, and they usually resolved when the medication was stopped.
Among non-therapeutic users (over 8,000 participants across twelve studies, many using methamphetamine or high-dose amphetamines), nearly one in three experienced psychotic symptoms. These episodes tended to be more severe, involving persecutory delusions and hallucinations, with faster onset and a greater likelihood of recurrence or persistence.
The biology underlying this difference is well understood. When stimulants are taken orally at guideline-recommended doses, they produce moderate, gradual changes in neurotransmitter activity central to attention and executive functions. The brain tolerates these changes relatively well. Non-therapeutic use, by contrast, often involves much higher doses that are frequently delivered through non-oral routes such as injection or smoking. This produces a rapid, excessive surge in dopamine activity, which is precisely the neurochemical pattern associated with psychotic symptoms.
The takeaway here is not that therapeutic stimulant use is risk-free, but that risk is strongly modulated by dose, route of administration, and individual psychiatric history. Clinicians are advised to monitor patients with pre-existing mood or psychotic disorders, particularly carefully.
A Nationwide Study Focuses on Methylphenidate Specifically:
Where the meta-analysis cast a wide net, a large-scale population study by Healy and colleagues drilled into a specific and clinically pressing question: does methylphenidate (the most commonly prescribed ADHD medication, also known as Ritalin) increase the risk of developing a psychotic disorder?
To find out, the researchers analyzed Finland's national health insurance database, tracking nearly 700,000 individuals diagnosed with ADHD. Finland's single-payer system made this kind of comprehensive, long-term tracking possible in a way that fragmented healthcare systems rarely allow.
Critically, the team adjusted for a range of confounding factors that have clouded previous research, including sex, parental education, parental history of psychosis, and the number of psychiatric visits and diagnoses prior to the ADHD diagnosis itself (a proxy for illness severity). After these adjustments, they found no significant difference in the risk of schizophrenia or non-affective psychosis between patients treated with methylphenidate and those who remained unmedicated. This held true even among patients with four or more years of continuous methylphenidate use.
The Take-Away:
When considered together, these studies offer meaningful reassurance without encouraging complacency.
For patients and families weighing ADHD treatment, the evidence suggests that methylphenidate used as prescribed does not increase psychosis risk, even over years of use. The rare cases of stimulant-associated psychosis in therapeutic settings are typically linked to high doses, pre-existing vulnerabilities, or both, and tend to resolve with discontinuation.
For clinicians, the findings reinforce the importance of baseline psychiatric assessment before initiating stimulant therapy, ongoing monitoring in patients with mood or psychotic disorder histories, and clear patient education about the risks of dose escalation or non-oral use.
The picture that emerges is one of a meaningful distinction between a medication used carefully within its therapeutic window and a drug misused outside of it. This distinction matters enormously when communicating risk to patients, policymakers, and the public.
ADHD is commonly treated with medication, but these treatments frequently cause side effects such as reduced appetite and disrupted sleep. Psychological and behavioral therapies exist as alternatives, but they tend to be expensive, hard to scale, and generally do little to address the motor difficulties that many children with ADHD experience — things like clumsy movement, poor handwriting, or difficulty with coordination.
Physical exercise has attracted attention as a more accessible option. But research findings have been mixed, partly because studies vary so widely in how exercise is delivered and what outcomes they measure. This meta-analysis, drawing on 21 studies involving 850 children and adolescents aged 5–20 with a clinical ADHD diagnosis, tries to cut through that noise.
Two types of motor skills
The researchers separated motor skills into two broad categories:
The Data:
Gross motor skills (16 studies, 613 participants)
Overall, exercise produced medium-to-large improvements in gross motor skills. The strongest gains were in:
No significant gains were found in balance or flexibility.
Fine motor skills (13 studies, 553 participants):
Exercise also produced medium-to-large improvements in fine motor skills, specifically:
The Results: What Kind of Exercise Works Best?
Two factors stood out consistently across both gross and fine motor skills: session length and frequency.
The type of exercise mattered; structured programs with clear motor-skill components (rather than unstructured physical activity) yielded stronger results.
These results are not without caveats, however. The authors urge caution in interpreting these findings. A few key limitations include:
The Bottom Line
This meta-analysis provides tentative moderate evidence that structured physical exercise can meaningfully support motor skill development in children and adolescents with ADHD — particularly when sessions run longer than 45 minutes and occur at least three times a week. The benefits appear most robust for object control, locomotion, handwriting, and manual dexterity.
That said, the evidence base still has real gaps. The authors call for better-designed, fully randomized controlled trials with consistent methods, standardized ways of measuring exercise intensity, and greater inclusion of children and adolescents who are not on medication — all of which would help clarify when, how, and for whom exercise works best.
Treatment guidelines for childhood ADHD recommend medications as the first-line treatment for most youth with ADHD. Still, concerns about side effects and long-term outcomes have increased interest in non-pharmacological approaches. Researchers at Saudi Arabian Armed Forces hospitals recently conducted a network meta-analysis comparing several interventions, including mindfulness-based therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, behavioral parent training, neurofeedback, yoga, virtual reality programs, and digital working memory training.
Although the authors aimed to “provide a rigorous methodological approach to combine evidence from multiple treatment comparisons,” the study illustrates several pitfalls that arise when network meta-analysis is applied to a thin and heterogeneous evidence base.
What Network Meta-analysis Can and Cannot Do:
Network meta-analysis extends conventional meta-analysis by combining:
When the evidence network is large and well-connected, this approach can provide useful estimates of comparative effectiveness among many treatments.
This method is not always best, however, as many networks are sparse. This is especially true in areas such as complementary or behavioral therapies. In sparse networks, estimates rely heavily on indirect comparisons, and single studies can exert disproportionate influence over the results.
Conventional meta-analysis focuses on heterogeneity, meaning differences in results across studies within the same comparison.
Network meta-analysis must additionally evaluate consistency, whether the direct and indirect evidence agree.
However, when comparisons are supported by only one or two studies and the network is weakly connected, statistical tests for heterogeneity and consistency have very little power. In practice, this means the analysis often cannot detect problems even if they are present.
Sparse networks also make publication bias difficult to evaluate. This concern is particularly relevant in fields dominated by small trials and emerging therapies.
Why Such Treatment Rankings Are Appealing, but Potentially Problematic:
Many network meta-analyses summarize results using SUCRA, which estimates the probability that each treatment ranks best.
SUCRA, or Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking, is a key statistical metric in network meta-analyses. It is used to rank treatments by efficacy or safety. This is achieved by summarizing the probabilities of a treatment's rank into a single percentage, where a higher SUCRA value indicates a superior treatment. Ultimately, SUCRA helps pinpoint the most effective intervention among the ones compared.
Again, in well-supported networks, SUCRA can provide a useful summary of comparative effectiveness. But in sparse networks, rankings can create an illusion of precision, because treatments supported by a single small study may appear highly ranked simply due to random variation.
What Did this New Network Meta-analysis Study?
The study includes 16 trials with a total of 806 participants. But the structure of the evidence network is far weaker than this headline number suggests.
Based on the underlying studies:
This produces a very thin network, in which several interventions rely entirely on single studies.
Another challenge is that the included trials measure different outcomes. Some evaluate ADHD symptom severity, while others measure parental stress.
When studies use different outcome scales, meta-analysis typically relies on standardized measures such as the standardized mean difference to allow comparisons across studies. However, the analysis reports only mean-average differences, making it difficult to interpret the relative effect sizes.
Study Issues (including Limited Evidence and Risk of Bias):
The intervention supported by the largest number of studies (family mindfulness-based therapy) was one of the two approaches reported as producing statistically significant results. The other was BrainFit, which is supported by only a single previous trial.
Despite this limited evidence base, the study ranks interventions using SUCRA:
Notably, none of the runner-up interventions demonstrated statistically significant efficacy.
The authors acknowledge methodological limitations in the included studies:
“Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) exhibited notable concerns, as blinding for active treatment was not applicable in most studies.”
Such limitations are common in behavioral intervention trials, but they further increase uncertainty in already small evidence networks.
Conclusions:
The study ultimately concludes:
“This network meta-analysis supports MBT and BPT as effective non-pharmacological treatments for ADHD.”
However, the evidence underlying these claims is limited. Some analyses rely on very small numbers of studies and participants, and the network structure depends heavily on indirect comparisons.
Network meta-analysis can be a powerful tool when applied to a large, consistent, and well-connected body of evidence. When the evidence base is sparse, however, the resulting rankings and comparisons may appear statistically sophisticated while resting on a fragile evidentiary foundation.
_logo%201.svg)
