Lost in explanation: internal conflicts in the discourse of ADHD psychoeducation.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric classifications are understood in many different ways. For children with ADHD and their parents, psychoeducation is an important source of information for shaping their understanding. Moreover, psychoeducation is often taken by children and parents to represent how their story is understood by the therapist. As a result, the way psychoeducation is formulated may affect the therapeutic alliance, one of the most robust mediators of treatment outcome. In addition, psychoeducation may indirectly influence the way we understand psychological differences as a society. METHODS: To better understand how the classification ADHD is given meaning through psychoeducation, we analyzed 41 written psychoeducational materials from four different countries; the USA, UK, Netherlands and Hungary. RESULTS: We identified five patterns of how the materials construct the discourse on ADHD. Notably, tension between biomedical and psychosocial perspectives resulted in conflict within a single thematic stance on ADHD as opposed to a conflict between parties with a different vision on ADHD. There were only few differences between countries in the way they constructed the discourse in the materials. CONCLUSIONS: These conflicts cause confusion, misrepresentation and decontextualization of ADHD. Ultimately, for those diagnosed with ADHD and their parents, conflicting information in psychoeducation materials may hamper their ability to understand themselves in the context of their difficulties.

In-depth characterization of neuroradiological findings in a large sample of individuals with autism spectrum disorder and controls.

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a group of neurodevelopmental conditions associated with quantitative differences in cortical and subcortical brain morphometry. Qualitative assessment of brain morphology provides complementary information on the possible underlying neurobiology. Studies of neuroradiological findings in ASD have rendered mixed results, and await robust replication in a sizable and independent sample. METHODS: We systematically and comprehensively assessed neuroradiological findings in a large cohort of participants with ASD and age-matched controls (total N = 620, 348 ASD and 272 controls), including 70 participants with intellectual disability (47 ASD, 23 controls). We developed a comprehensive scoring system, augmented by standardized biometric measures. RESULTS: There was a higher incidence of neuroradiological findings in individuals with ASD (89.4 %) compared to controls (83.8 %, p = .042). Certain findings were also more common in ASD, in particular opercular abnormalities (OR 1.9, 95 % CI 1.3-3.6) and mega cisterna magna (OR 2.4, 95 % CI 1.4-4.0) reached significance when using FDR, whereas increases in macrocephaly (OR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2-3.2), cranial deformities (OR 2.4, 95 % CI: 1.0-5.8), calvarian / dural thickening (OR 1.5, 95 % CI 1.0-2.3), ventriculomegaly (OR 3.4, 95 % CI 1.3-9.2), and hypoplasia of the corpus callosum (OR 2.7, 95 % CI 1.1-6.3) did not survive this correction. Furthermore, neuroradiological findings were more likely to occur in isolation in controls, whereas they clustered more frequently in ASD. The incidence of neuroradiological findings was higher in individuals with mild intellectual disability (95.7 %), irrespective of ASD diagnosis. CONCLUSION: There was a subtly higher prevalence of neuroradiological findings in ASD, which did not appear to be specific to the condition. Individual findings or clusters of findings may point towards the neurodevelopmental mechanisms involved in individual cases. As such, clinical MRI assessments may be useful to guide further etiopathological (genetic) investigations, and are potentially valuable to fundamental ASD research.