Reacción a "Half of the most viewed TikTok videos about ADHD are not in line with scientific literature"

Due to the recent nature of social media engagement on platforms such as TikTok, very few studies have been able to evaluate the impact it has. As mentioned by the authors, the huge rise of TikTok ADHD content has only been observed in the last 5 years and little has been published on this. In fact, ADHD fell within the 10 most -viewed health related hashtags on TikTok so we really need to understand more about its impact on those viewing this content. 

It is therefore great to see a study starting to address this. This study is very well conducted, with a thorough analysis and robust findings. The rational for the way the study was conducted is sound, well designed and well explained. 

One limitation of the study is that the majority of participants in the second study were females (669/843) which does not represent the ADHD general population (ratios of male to female vary from 1:4 male to 1:2) so we must be cautious in generalising the findings. 

It would also have been useful to see more detail on what they defined as misinformation. The experts rated according to DSM-V diagnosis (attention, hyperactivity, impulsivity) which is a robust and scientific way of approaching content. However, we know that many things are linked with ADHD but not part of diagnostic symptoms (emotion dysregulation, sleep, social difficulties etc). Therefore, content that would have been rated as misinformation can be relevant (and authors acknowledge this) but would not be scored as such as they are not technically linked with ADHD in terms of strict diagnosis criteria. This nuance would have been good to include and reflect a more holistic approach and understanding of ADHD that is not solely based on criteria but still has significant evidence-based studies behind. 

Overall, this paper has some important implications and offers a balanced view of the impact on social media. On one hand it supports how much young people rely on social media, the breadth of reach of this kind of content (over 500 million views) and that there are positives from viewing such videos (sense of community, greater understanding etc). But it also raises concern about viewers relying on this content as educational and support sources. The lack of nuance, evidence-base and reliability of these video is very high. Now this doesn’t mean that it is always bad, but it is to be taken with extreme caution. 

The findings also show that the group more prone to highly rate or engage with these videos is the group that is self-diagnosed which is interesting but potentially worrying. The diagnosed group seemed better able to tell the difference between quality of information, while self-diagnosed were not as able to do so. 

Therefore, if any person has seen this type of content on TikTok and thinks they may have ADHD, I would say that I am glad they might have found an answer to ongoing difficulties. But I would advise to do some further research from more reliable sources and evidence-based criteria. Social media can be a great source of support but shouldn’t be a place for diagnosis as it is not made for this. It should be used alongside other more reliable methods, sources, and information.