Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> <p>There are 5.66 billion social media user identities worldwide, and content about ADHD is popular, with 6.1 million and 5 million videos under the hashtag “#ADHD” on Instagram and TikTok respectively. Given misinformation is common on social media, it is important to establish the quality and accuracy of information about ADHD on social media. A scoping review was chosen to explore the scope and nature of research on this topic, and to facilitate comparison across different social media sites and different research methods.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> <p>This review examined the methods used by researchers to assess the quality of ADHD-related information on social media. Specifically, it aimed to identify the methodologies researchers used to assess the quality of information, synthesise the existing evidence, and identify areas and issues requiring more research.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> <p>The scoping review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Three databases were searched: Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo. The search was limited to English language and papers published from 2009 onwards. The search strategy included the names of major social media platforms. Studies were eligible if they evaluated the quality of ADHD-related information available on social media. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 were conducted in high-income countries. Data was extracted independently by 2 reviewers who subsequently collaborated to synthesize the findings and identify the main themes and conclusions.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> <p>Four studies analysed TikTok, 1 study analysed both TikTok and Instagram, 4 studies analysed YouTube, and 1 study analysed 5 internet forums. Number of videos/posts analysed ranged from 45 to 159. Considerable variation was observed in the methods used to assess information quality. Four studies compared content to either the diagnostic criteria given in the DSM or a derivative of the DSM (ASRS-v1.1). Three studies used different generalised quality assessment tools designed for assessing health information. Four studies categorised content as “useful” or “misleading” using study-specific criteria. Despite methodological differences, most studies concluded that ADHD-related information on social media was of poor quality.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> <p>The heterogeneity of methods used to assess quality limits the ability to draw broad conclusions about the quality of ADHD-related information available. Future research should adopt clearly defined quality assessment tools to improve consistency and comparability. Specifically, all reviewed studies had a limited sample size and 90% were conducted in high income countries. Moreover, the role of social media algorithms in presenting different content to different groups of people was not explored. Future research should include larger, more diverse samples of social media content and investigate how algorithm-driven content and geographical context affect the quality of information users encounter.</p> </sec>