Is ADHD really a myth? What does the evidence say?

Recently, Channel 4 aired a documentary called ‘The Great ADHD Myth’ which was presented by Dr Max Pemberton.  

In it, he discussed Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) with a number of experts from different professions and ultimately shared his own conclusion that ADHD was ‘just a social construct’ rather than a neurodevelopmental condition.

But what does the evidence actually say?

What is ADHD?

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is a childhood-onset neurodevelopmental disorder that interferes with functioning through a persistent pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity.

In other words, people with ADHD may find it harder to concentrate, stay organised, sit still, or think before acting. These difficulties happen regularly and can affect daily life, school, work or relationships. Whilst the condition usually manifests in childhood, it can affect adults as well.

There are three different types: Inattentive (where people have problems staying focused on tasks or activities), Hyperactive/Impulsive (where a person is restless and lacks self-control or self-regulation) or combined type (which has symptoms of both).

There is no single factor which causes ADHD, and it is often considered the result of a complex interplay between genetic and environmental factors. However, there are certain groups who are believed to be at higher risk. These include:

• People who were born prematurely

• People whose mother smoked, consumed alcohol or experienced extreme stress during pregnancy

• People with epilepsy

• People who experienced a severe head injury

• People who have a relative with ADHD

Despite the recent sharp increase in awareness, ADHD is not a new phenomenon. In fact, in an open letter to Channel 4, the charity ADHD UK stated that:

“ADHD is not scientifically controversial. It is recognised by the World Health Organization, the NHS, NICE and every major medical body on earth. Physicians described it in 1798 - two centuries before the smartphone and 150 years before ultra-processed food. If modern life invented ADHD, it managed to do so remarkably far in advance.”

What did the documentary show?

There were different elements to the documentary, including interviews with different experts, the presenter going through a diagnosis and medication experience and a family with lived experience of ADHD. These elements were presented through the framing of two main questions: Is ADHD actually a neurodevelopmental disorder? And how should ADHD be treated? (especially in young boys who seemed to be the focus).

The family who was featured included a son called Mason, who has a diagnosis of ADHD. Mason and his mother had already decided they wanted to stop Mason’s ADHD medication, and the documentary followed the family’s experience of this.

The family and Mason were supported throughout the stopping of his medication both by experts provided by the production team and Mason’s school. This included six simultaneous lifestyle changes at once: medication withdrawal, removal of screentime and gaming devices, a change in diet (removing processed food and sugar and increasing protein), unnamed nutritional supplements, a yoga routine and substantially more one-to one outdoor time and parental attention.

It’s clear throughout that Mason and his family are very keen to stop his medication entirely. In the first four weeks after stopping, the report from both Mason, his mother and his teacher is that it’s going well. Mason feels like he is more himself, he is engaging more with friends, and his schoolwork isn’t significantly declining.

For the last two weeks of the six-week trial his behaviour at school does begin to change with reports from his teachers that he is struggling to concentrate on his schoolwork.

At the end of the six weeks, the family decide not to return immediately to medication, however, within a further two months of the filming ending, they do decide to return to medication following a continued decline in Masons’ performance at school.

The documentary presents this as an experiment. However, experts have made it very clear that this should not be considered evidence of anything and is certainly not a ‘true experiment’.

As MQ Fellow Dr Jessica Eccles, Chair, Royal College of Psychiatrists Neurodevelopmental Psychiatry Special Interest Group explains:

“The follow-up period was too short, and the programme's own data undercuts its conclusion. By week five, the child's teacher was recording him as “more disruptive, more talkative, more fidgety, disengaged,” struggling to complete work he had previously managed, and his mother described him needing “normal breaks” and getting frustrated that he “can't do it” anymore. That is the clinical picture the medication had been controlling, re-emerging on cue — which is closer to evidence for the diagnosis than against it.”

Indeed, many of the lifestyle changes made during the trial period are already proven to be beneficial for everyone. A healthier diet, more exercise, time in nature, reduced screen time and more time spent with loved ones all have been proven to have health benefits including reduction of symptoms for a range of different mental health conditions.

But just because they are proven to be beneficial for a range of conditions, doesn’t mean they are completely effective for managing serious health conditions long term or without additional support and intervention.

“The ‘experiment’ with Mason was not an experiment. Nor was it a case study. It was an uncontrolled exercise for entertainment’s sake, which teaches us nothing.”

says Dr Rachel Moseley, Principal Academic in Psychology, Bournemouth University.

“The child and the family were very aware of the film crew and the narrative of the documentary, and many factors changing during the very short and artificial “test” period means that any changes in the child’s behaviour cannot be attributed to stopping medication (they might, for instance, be related to the stress and/or excitement of being followed by TV cameras).

The presenter, Dr Max Pemberton, is an NHS Psychiatrist and a columnist for the Daily Mail. In the documentary, he undertook a private consultation for himself with a Consultant Psychiatrist which was conducted over a video call. This was an extensive assessment which took around an hour and a half and resulted in a diagnosis of combined type ADHD.

In his Daily Mail column, Dr Pemberton wrote more about this experience:

“The assessment cost £1,200, paid for by a TV production company for a documentary on the rise in ADHD – and I want to be fair about the subject.

I’d deliberately selected a consultant psychiatrist as I knew they would do the job properly, since the point was never to go hunting for some rogue clinic dishing out diagnoses.

So, over the next hour-and-a-half, I answered everything the psychiatrist asked me honestly.

Yes, I keep going more or less every night until half two in the morning and then fall asleep on the spot. Yes, my phone lives in my pocket and nowhere else, because otherwise I lose it multiple times a day. And yes, I’ve a dreadful sense of time, which is why every clock in my flat is deliberately set to a different time, to keep me on my toes.

At the end, I was diagnosed with ADHD, combined type – characterised by inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity.

Even though it’s the judgment of a highly qualified professional, I don’t accept it.”

The diagnostic process depicted in the documentary is, of course, edited, and so it is not clear if the consultation followed the best practice guidelines.  Professor Subodh Dave, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists said:

“An ADHD diagnosis should never be based solely on questionnaires. It requires a comprehensive clinical assessment that considers differential diagnoses, co-occurring conditions and an individual’s wider circumstances. Getting this right is essential, as both missing or misdiagnosing ADHD and related conditions can have lasting consequences for patients.”

Following this diagnosis, the documentary shows clips of experts discussing how ADHD is not diagnosable through brain imaging or other physiological tests. Of course, this is true of many psychological conditions and some physical health issues too. In fact, many health conditions are diagnosed clinically after an analysis of symptoms, as opposed to using scan or blood tests.

However, the documentary fails to mention that there is evidence of a biological basis for ADHD. As Dr Eccles explains:

“The evidence for a neurobiological basis is substantial and long-standing. The ENIGMA-ADHD mega-analysis pooling MRI data from over 3,200 participants across dozens of international sites, found significantly smaller volumes in several subcortical brain regions (including the amygdala, caudate, putamen, nucleus accumbens and hippocampus) in people with ADHD compared with controls, effects most pronounced in childhood. Later ENIGMA work extended this to cortical thickness and surface area. 

Twin and family studies put heritability at roughly 70–80%, among the highest of any psychiatric condition and comparable to height; genome-wide association studies have identified specific common genetic variants associated with ADHD.” 

What doesn’t the documentary feature?

In a one-hour documentary it wouldn’t be possible to include everyone. However, the voices largely missing from the documentary were those of people with lived experience of ADHD. Whilst Mason and his family were featured heavily, there were no women or girls or adults with ADHD featured.

Women and girls with ADHD often present very differently from boys and are more likely to be undiagnosed or only receive a diagnosis of ADHD in later life.

There are also high rates of adults being diagnosed with ADHD in later life, including adults who experienced childhood without the significant screen time today’s youth face.

Also excluded from the documentary is the difficulty many people with symptoms of ADHD have in getting access to support. Whilst the production company funded Dr Pemberton’s private assessment, many people simply cannot afford to go private and instead spend months, if not years, on waiting lists.

Even after receiving a diagnosis, many schools are under resourced and simply unable to offer the support that Mason received in the documentary. This leaves too many families without the support they need to effectively manage symptoms which are not helped by ‘playing outside a bit more’.

What is most stark in its absence, however, is representation of the overwhelming existing evidence that ADHD is indeed a neurodevelopmental disorder.

As Dr Moseley shares:

“This pseudo-scientific programme ignores a wealth of rigorous evidence inconvenient for its central premises: that ADHD is a social construct, over diagnosed and over-medicated.”

Dr Eccles expands on this:

“Stepping back, the film’s central thesis — that ADHD is not a genuine neurodevelopmental condition, has no biological basis, and is best understood as a social construct invented to medicate away difficult or inconvenient behaviour — is contradicted by the WHO’s ICD-11, the DSM-5-TR, NICE guideline NG87, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the 2021 International Consensus Statement signed by more than 80 leading researchers across 27 countries.”

So, what are the real questions we should be asking?

Rather than asking whether ADHD is real and if treatment is necessary, the more pertinent question is - how we can better support people with ADHD?

Demand for ADHD diagnosis and services has increased significantly in recent years, so much so that the UK Government actually launched a prevalence review to try and better understand why waiting lists were so long and who actually needs support.

Rather than trying to make blanket statements about medications and their alternatives. Instead, personalised treatment plans that take into account each individual’s lifestyle and circumstances are considered the most effective approach.

This is particularly true when it comes to neurodevelopmental conditions which still carry significant stigma.

Misinformation is damaging and carries significant consequences. Whilst robust conversations are important, documentaries such as this which excludes important facts and voices can potentially do more harm than good.

People with ADHD are at higher risk of premature mortality. Particularly if they don’t get the support they need. By sharing the message that serious and well established conditions like ADHD are 'a social construct' the worry is that people who would benefit from support for their ADHD symptoms will instead believe that they 'just need to try harder', that their symptoms are some sort of personal failing or fear asking for support.

In a statement issued in response to the documentary, The Royal College of Psychiatrists state: 

“The way we speak about neurodevelopmental conditions really matters. It can fuel harmful stigma experienced by people living with the condition and risk discouraging people from seeking the support and treatment they need.

“While we understand individuals may have their own opinions about the diagnosis and treatment of ADHD, the College takes an evidence-based approach. Research suggests 3 to 5% of the population have ADHD, indicating that it is still under-recognised, under-diagnosed and under-treated in the UK.

“The sharp increase in ADHD waiting lists and diagnoses in recent years needs to be better understood. It might be explained by improvements in public awareness of these conditions, misdiagnosis due to poor quality assessments and a variety of other factors, but invalidating the condition does a disservice to people with ADHD and professionals involved in their care.”

If you want to learn more about ADHD, or are concerned about symptoms you or a loved one have experienced, you can find information and resources on the Royal College of Psychiatrists ADHD information page and though the charity ADHD-UK.