Academic textbooks on ADHD genetics: balanced or biased?

Abstract

Academic study books are essential assets for disseminating knowledge about ADHD to future healthcare professionals. This study examined if they are balanced with regard to genetics. We selected and analyzed study books (N=43) used in (pre) master’s programmes at 10 universities in the Netherlands. Because the mere behaviourally informed quantitative genetics give a much higher effect size of the genetic involvement in ADHD, it is important that study books contrast these findings with molecular genetics’ outcomes. The latter studies use real genetic data, and their low effect sizes expose the potential weaknesses of quantitative genetics, like underestimating the involvement of the environment. Only a quarter of books mention both effect sizes and contrast these findings, while another quarter does not discuss any effect size. Most importantly, however, roughly half of the books in our sample mention only the effect sizes from quantitative genetic studies without addressing the low explained variance of molecular genetic studies. This may confuse readers by suggesting that the weakly associated genes support the quite spectacular, but potentially flawed estimates of twin, family and adoption studies, while they actually contradict them.

Psychiatrization of, with and by children: Drawing a complex picture

“…Despite psychiatrization’s ‘messiness’ on many levels, top-down-processes such as including ADHD and other disorders in the DSM still have a fundamental influence in shaping psychiatrization processes by defining their ideological framework. However, Te Meerman et al’s (2017) analysis of textbooks shows how the psy-knowledge used to scientifically justify the definitions in the DSM may be transferred or spread in very different ways. This heterogeneity also mirrors heterogeneity within psychiatry itself (i.e.…”

“…In this discussion, we reflect upon ways in which young people get engaged in ‘zones of potential circulation’ (Lakoff, 2005: 63) of psy-knowledges and practices, and associated commercial interests. Zones of circulation include global diagnostic manuals, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM ), currently in its fifth edition (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 2013); the ways diagnostic manuals, as the primary ‘boss texts’ of psychiatry, are activated by different actors for different purposes (Hande et al, 2016: 87); how diagnostic criteria circulate to professionals and more widely, for example, through their inclusion in University textbooks (Te Meerman et al, 2017); and broader scale transnational flows of psy-knowledge (Bergey et al, 2018), including the power dynamics and coloniality that structure the circulation of psychiatric knowledge and practices in relation to children around the world (Béhague, 2018; Mills, 2014; Witeska-Młynarczyk, 2019).…”

What children and young people learn about ADHD from youth information books: A text analysis of nine books on ADHD available in Dutch

“…A recent study revealed that many academic textbooks cite only these high estimates found from twin studies, which focus almost exclusively on behaviours, in isolation from the social context to which they are a response. Moreover, the books omit that the high percentages observed in twin studies contrast sharply with the much lower estimates from genetically informed molecular studies ( 50 ). These studies conclude that when aggregated, genes explain 4% of behaviours named as ADHD at most ( 51 ).…”

Ambivalent bonds, positive and negative emotions, and expectations in teachers’ perceptions of relationship with their students with ADHD

“…The determinants of ADHD are complex, broad, dynamic and ambiguous (see Erlandsson et al, 2016 ; Perez-Alvarez, 2017 ). Literature considers mostly neurodevelopmental factors (Dark et al, 2018 ), genetics (Akutagava-Martins et al, 2016 ; te Meerman et al, 2019 ), environmental factors (Martin et al, 2018 ; Mill & Petronis, 2008 ; Thapar et al, 2013 ), culture (Asherson et al, 2012 ), but also other factors (Sagiv et al, 2013 ). Based on clinical practice and for diagnostic purposes, the following ADHD subtypes are distinguished: predominantly inattentive (Saad et al, 2018 ), predominantly hyperactive-impulsive (Sagvolden et al, 2005 ) and combined type of ADHD (Bluschke et al, 2018 ).…”