Nöroçeşitlilik ve Nöroaykırılıkla İlişkili Klinik Tanıların Ruh Sağlığı Araştırmalarında Haritalanması

Özet (abstract)

Importance The terms neurodivergence and neurodiversity are increasingly used across mental health and broader clinical literature, as well as in clinical practice, clinical service commissioning, and policy contexts, despite their lack of clinical and diagnostic specificity. Objective To quantitively map clinical diagnoses associated with the terms neurodivergence and neurodiversity in the empirical mental health literature through a scoping review conducted with experts with lived experience . Evidence Review Following JBI methods and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews, PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched up to August 1, 2025, and identified 134 studies including 151 134 participants that recruited participants defined as neurodivergent or neurodiverse . Findings Participants were primarily identified through self-reported diagnoses (n = 56 [41.8%]) or self-identification (n = 50 [37.3%]). A heterogeneous range of diagnoses was associated with neurodivergence and neurodiversity , most commonly autism (n = 92 [68.7%]), followed by ADHD (n = 86 [64.2%]), dyslexia (n = 44 [32.8%]), dyspraxia (n = 21 [15.7%]), anxiety disorder (n = 20 [14.9%]), and dyscalculia (n = 17 [12.7%]). Notably, 29 studies (21.6%) did not specify any clinical diagnoses. Conclusions and relevance While neurodivergence and neurodiversity are valuable for capturing lived experience, their lack of specificity may introduce substantial heterogeneity in research focused on clinical categories. These findings suggest prioritizing precise diagnostic descriptors in clinical practice and research involving clinically defined conditions, while reserving neurodivergent for studies and contexts focused on self-identification and identity.

Yazarların özeti; kaynağından alınmıştır. JAMA Psychiatry, 2026 · DOI ↗