A look at “Historical development of ADHD from 1753 to 2026” by Farzad Salehpour and Francisco Gonzalez-Lima (2026)
There’s a popular claim that ADHD is a modern invention, cooked up by pharmaceutical companies or caused by smartphones. This sweeping American review begs to differ. It traces descriptions of ADHD-like traits back more than 270 years, long before TikTok was a twinkle in anyone’s eye.
What it covers
The 1700s: “fleeting attention”. In 1753, a Dutch physician, Kloekhof, described attentio volubilis, Latin for “fleeting attention”. A French physician described something similar the same year. A German physician, Weikard, later noted that it appeared early in life and affected children’s schooling. In 1798, the Scottish physician Alexander Crichton described children who struggled to focus on any one task. The explanations were often wildly unscientific, involving irritated nerves for example, but the observations were recognisable.
The 1900s: from morals to brains. Early explanations often framed restless, impulsive children as having “moral” defects. After an epidemic of brain inflammation (encephalitis lethargica) in the early 20th century left some children with similar behaviour, attention shifted towards neurological explanations. The discovery that stimulant medication could help, from the 1930s onwards, cemented a biological view.
Changing labels. Over the decades the condition was renamed many times, through “minimal brain dysfunction” and “hyperkinetic reaction” to ADHD. The focus shifted from hyperactivity to attention and executive functioning.
ADHD grows up. From around 2000, adult ADHD became widely recognised. A key long-term study found that only around 9% of children with ADHD showed sustained recovery by young adulthood, while around two-thirds moved in and out of remission. That challenges the idea that half simply “grow out of it”.
Genes, brains and the future. The review covers twin studies and genetics, which show ADHD is highly heritable but involves many genes of small effect. It also covers brain imaging and newer treatments. The authors call for a move from rigid categories towards more dimensional, personalised understandings.
A grain of glitter ✨
This is an impressively thorough and readable history, and a useful antidote to the “ADHD isn’t real” crowd. But it’s a narrative review, so the authors chose what to emphasise, and the story is told very much through a biomedical lens.
The word “neurodiversity” doesn’t appear once, and social, cultural and lived-experience perspectives get little space. It’s a history of how doctors and scientists saw ADHD, not of how ADHDers saw themselves. The authors are also known for research on photobiomodulation, a light-based brain stimulation technique, which features among the “emerging” treatments. It’s still experimental, so readers should note the authors’ professional interest.
Why this matters
If you’ve ever been told ADHD is “just a modern excuse”, you can confidently say otherwise: people have been describing it for nearly three centuries. Understanding that history can be validating. It also shows how our explanations, from moral failing to brain difference, have changed over time, and may continue to change.
Unicorns may be mythical, but ADHD certainly isn’t. It’s been galloping through history since at least 1753.