Neurodevelopmental diagnoses like Autism and ADHD are often given in childhood to provide appropriate support in medical, educational, and family settings. However, these diagnoses accompany individuals into adulthood, often continuing to affect their lives in ways that do not align with their current functioning. What happens when a diagnosis turns from an advantage into a disadvantage? A new study examines the perspective of adults who sought to re-evaluate their diagnoses.

The study, published in the journal Soc Sci Med, September 2026, included interviews with adults who actively sought to re-evaluate diagnoses of Autism and/or ADHD. Participants shared the reasons that motivated them to request re-evaluation. These motivations were grouped into four main themes:

  • Personal Capability: A feeling of being able to cope, and that the diagnosis does not reflect their current skills.
  • Sense of Normality: A feeling that they are not fundamentally different from other people, and that the diagnosis should not define them.
  • Demand for Fairness: A desire to protect themselves from judgment or inappropriate treatment stemming from the diagnosis.
  • Removing Barriers: An aspiration to remove employment, social, or other limitations created by the diagnosis.

The study findings indicate that while these diagnoses did benefit some participants in their childhood by providing resources and support, many described how they became restrictive over the years. These restrictions manifested in impacts on career opportunities, interactions with the healthcare system, and the shaping of their self-identity. The researchers report that the diagnoses were experienced as "sticky" - meaning they were linked to childhood contexts but continued to influence and exist in various institutions in adulthood.

According to the researchers, the fact that adults seek to remove or change diagnoses, and that various institutions require such a formal action, highlights the enduring power of psychiatric classifications - both as resources and as limitations. The study contributes to the broader discussion on "over-diagnosis" by emphasizing the temporal and institutional dimensions of diagnostic proliferation, and by examining how the balance between benefit and burden may shift over time.

It is important to note that the group of participants in this study does not represent all autistic people or those with ADHD. However, it offers an important case study, illuminating the possibility of re-evaluation as an appropriate response to the persistence of diagnoses over time and their institutional impact.