Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40258189›Full record

ArticleHealth (London, England : 1997)2026

Navigating residual diagnostic categories: The lived experiences of women diagnosed with autism and ADHD in adulthood.

Emma Craddock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health (London, England : 1997), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Grief, Relief, and Belief: A Social Media Study on Late Identification of Neurodivergence.Autism : the international journal of research and practice · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Emma CraddockBirmingham City University, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1292-8001

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article conceptualises a combined autism and ADHD (AuDHD) diagnosis as a residual category not formally represented in diagnostic systems, addressing a critical gap in neurodiversity research. Using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of email interviews with six women diagnosed in adulthood, it examines the ambivalence arising from inhabiting this liminal diagnostic space. Residuality generates conflicting feelings about autism, ADHD, and the self, resulting in fragmented identities shaped more by societal narratives than by interpersonal perceptions. Themes include the contradictions between autism and ADHD ('two separate parts of my brain'), their sometimes-complementary relationship ('two sides of the same coin'), and the tension between neurodiversity and medicalisation narratives ('autism is a part of me, ADHD is an add-on'). To resolve this ambivalence, participants sought an objective understanding of their conditions and distinguished between neurodivergent and neurotypical identities. Collectively, their narratives reveal a fluid and dynamic understanding of AuDHD. As the first study to explore the lived experiences of adults diagnosed with both autism and ADHD, it makes an original contribution by developing an AuDHD phenomenology and analytical framework. By amplifying the voices of women historically marginalised, the findings underscore the need for integrated diagnostic processes and tailored support to foster cohesive self-identity. This article contributes to neurodiversity literature, broadens understandings of categorical systems, and illuminates the complexities of navigating residual diagnostic spaces.

Indexed as

Attention Deficit Disorder with HyperactivityAutistic DisorderAdultFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMiddle AgedNarrationQualitative ResearchSelf ConceptADHDadulthoodambivalenceautismco-morbiditydiagnosisgender

Identifiers

PMID40258189
PMCPMC12923626

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.