ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Adult ADHD diagnostic pathways in the United Kingdom: a structured review and policy case for a national commissioning and quality framework for England.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adult attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) diagnostic pathways in England are under sustained pressure. Demand has risen, waiting times have lengthened, service models remain fragmented, workforce capacity is uneven, and access and quality vary markedly between localities. Although the core clinical principles of ADHD diagnosis are relatively well established, the organisational conditions needed to deliver them consistently remain less secure. Aim: To synthesise UK-wide evidence on adult ADHD diagnostic pathways and to develop an evidence-informed policy case for a national commissioning and quality framework for England. Design and setting: PRISMA-informed structured policy-oriented review of UK-wide evidence on adult ADHD diagnostic pathways, interpreted through a health services and commissioning lens. The review is not a registered systematic review and did not undertake formal risk-of-bias scoring; appraisal was structured and narrative. Method: A structured literature search was conducted across PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, Google Scholar, SciSpace, and ArXiv. Searches were conducted between 2023 and March 2026, focusing on publications from 2010 onwards. Screening and reporting were informed by PRISMA 2020 guidance, adapted for a structured literature review rather than a full systematic review. Eligible sources included peer-reviewed empirical studies, clinical audits, service assessments, mixed-methods studies, qualitative studies, consensus statements, systematic or scoping reviews, and policy documents relevant to adult ADHD diagnostic pathways in UK healthcare settings. Findings were synthesised thematically into pathways and cross-cutting system factors. Results: Twenty-six sources met the eligibility criteria. The evidence showed marked variation in access routes, referral quality, screening and triage practice, assessment delivery, service configuration, transition arrangements, post-diagnostic interfaces, and supporting infrastructure. Clinical standards for diagnosis were comparatively stable across NICE, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the UK Adult ADHD Network, and the British Association for Psychopharmacology guidance, yet operational delivery was inconsistent. Policy implication: England requires a national adult ADHD commissioning and quality framework that defines minimum diagnostic standards, core pathway functions, stratified allocation of expertise, mixed-provider governance, and whole-pathway outcome monitoring. The framework proposed here is conceptual rather than operational: it defines minimum functions, standards, and governance expectations, but it does not yet specify operational criteria for stratification, complexity thresholds, audit mechanisms, or rules for local implementation, which remain matters for the implementation phase.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.