Study Reports First European Consensus on 30 Principles for Digital ADHD Tools
For the first time, a European network of ADHD experts has reached a comprehensive consensus recognizing the potential of digital health technologies to expand access to assessment, support, and personalized care. Published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, the study establishes 30 principles for their responsible development, scientific evaluation, and implementation. While acknowledging the opportunities these technologies offer, researchers emphasize that their use must be guided by reliable evidence, user needs, and integration with existing clinical care.
Note: This article is intended for general information and educational purposes. It summarizes scientific research in accessible language for a broad audience and is not an official scientific press release.
A person looking for ADHD support online may encounter symptom questionnaires, scheduling apps, remote appointments, digital monitoring platforms, and devices that track activity. Some are designed for healthcare settings; others are marketed directly to consumers. Their purposes differ, and so does the evidence behind them.
This creates a difficult question for patients, families, and healthcare professionals: how can they judge which technologies are suitable and trustworthy?
A peer-reviewed study published on July 16, 2026, in the Journal of Medical Internet Research offers a starting point. Researchers working through the European Network for ADHD (EUNETHYDIS) developed and ratified 30 expert consensus statements addressing digital health technologies for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
Rather than evaluating individual apps or cognitive exercises, the study establishes a shared framework for how digital health technologies should be developed, scientifically evaluated, and integrated into existing services, with attention to potential risks.
What Did the Researchers Want to Find Out?
The team examined the priorities that should guide digital health for people with ADHD. The field includes computerized assessments, smartphone applications, online information and self-help resources, wearable monitoring devices, telehealth, and digital intervention platforms.
Researchers noted that rapid technological development can outpace the scientific evaluation of digital health tools. Different products are also evaluated in different ways, while privacy, accessibility, and meaningful outcomes remain important concerns.
ADHD-related differences in attention, motivation, organization, and executive functioning can affect how people interact with these tools. The researchers therefore wanted a consensus that reflected clinical knowledge, technical expertise, and the experience of people with ADHD.
Authors and Institutional Affiliations
The study was authored by 26 researchers and contributors affiliated with institutions across seven countries:
- University of Exeter, United Kingdom: Anna Price and Tamsin Newlove-Delgado (Faculty of Health and Life Sciences); Tashinga Ruzive, Anita Salimi, and James Wenger.
- Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology Graduate University, Japan (Human Developmental Neurobiology Unit): Emi Furukawa.
- University of Southampton, United Kingdom (School of Psychology): Alessio Bellato and Samuele Cortese.
- Central Institute of Mental Health, Germany (Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy): Pascal-M Aggensteiner and Anna Kaiser.
- Friedrich Schiller University Jena, Germany (Institute of Psychology, Clinical Psychology of Childhood and Adolescence): Pascal-M Aggensteiner.
- German Center for Mental Health (DZPG), Germany (Partner Site Mannheim-Heidelberg-Ulm): Anna Kaiser.
- BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT, United Kingdom: Matthew Bellringer.
- Oxford Health NHS, United Kingdom: Claire Cattel.
- Nottingham Trent University, United Kingdom (Department of Psychology): David Daley.
- University of Cologne, Germany (Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy of Childhood and Adolescence, Faculty of Medicine): Manfred Döpfner.
- University of Cagliari, Italy (Department of Biomedical Sciences, Neuroscience and Clinical Pharmacology): Federica Donno.
- University of Nottingham, United Kingdom (Institute of Mental Health): Madeleine J Groom and Elizabeth B Liddle.
- University College Dublin, Ireland (School of Psychology): Christina Kini-Seery.
- Queen Mary University of London, United Kingdom (Department of Psychology, School of Biological and Behavioural Sciences): Katarzyna Kostyrka-Allchorne and Giorgia Michelini.
- King’s College London, United Kingdom (Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience): Jonna Kuntsi (Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre); Edmund J S Sonuga-Barke (Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry).
- Llansamlet Surgery, United Kingdom: Stuart Kyle.
- Haukeland University Hospital, Norway (Division of Psychiatry): Emilie S Nordby.
- Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust, United Kingdom: Nicholas Peres.
- Karolinska Institutet, Sweden (Department of Clinical Neuroscience): Douglas Sjöwall.
Anna Price and Emi Furukawa contributed equally to the research.
How Was the Study Conducted?
This was a modified Delphi study, not a clinical trial or a systematic review. The Delphi approach develops consensus by asking participants to evaluate statements over successive rounds, with opportunities to revise them.
The work began at an EUNETHYDIS meeting in Cagliari, Italy, in September 2024. Drawing on those discussions and published literature, the organizers drafted 19 statements.
A panel of 28 collaborators, including researchers, clinicians, technology specialists, and people with lived experience of ADHD, assessed the statements through two online survey rounds and discussion meetings. Ten panelists (36%) had lived experience of ADHD.
In the first round, agreement on the 19 statements ranged from 78.6% to 100%. After revisions, the panel considered 30 statements in the second round, when agreement ranged from 92.6% to 100%.
The final statements were circulated to all 129 EUNETHYDIS members. At the network’s September 2025 meeting in Bonn, Germany, all 52 members present voted to ratify them. That vote represented the attending members, not all 129 recipients.
What Makes This Study Different?
The authors describe their work as the first comprehensive set of key considerations specifically for digital health care for people with ADHD. Earlier guidance existed for digital mental health more broadly, but ADHD-related technologies bring their own questions about engagement, accessibility, and clinical use.
The process also incorporated the views of people with ADHD rather than relying on professional expertise alone. Their contributions highlighted whether tools fit everyday life and whether the outcomes being measured actually matter to users.
The result is not an approval system for individual products. It is a common starting point for researchers, developers, clinicians, and people considering digital support.
Key Findings: Four Areas of Consensus
1. Digital Tools Offer Promise for Accessibility, but Evidence Remains Limited
The panel agreed that digital technology could expand timely access to ADHD assessment and evidence-based support, make services more flexible and accessible to people with different needs and preferences, and provide information for monitoring and feedback.
However, the authors deliberately framed these as possibilities. They noted that the evidence base for many potential benefits remains limited. The consensus does not establish that digital tools already reduce waiting times or produce better clinical outcomes.
2. Product Development Requires Co-Design and Rigorous Real-World Evaluation
The experts recommended involving people with ADHD, clinicians, researchers, and developers early in product design, then continuing to gather feedback.
They also called for rigorous evaluation of effectiveness, usability, feasibility, efficiency, and potential harm. Evidence should include outcomes relevant to real life, not only technical measurements or short-term engagement. For a person choosing a tool, an attractive interface is not evidence that the product achieves its stated purpose.
3. Implementation Must Complement, Rather Than Replace, Clinical Care
Digital tools should be considered alongside existing care and support, with attention to their limitations. The consensus identifies professional training, technical infrastructure, privacy protection, and clear information about products as important conditions for implementation.
It also warns against using digital interventions simply to replace nondigital services. People who do not want or cannot use a particular technology should have appropriate alternatives.
4. Risks Include Digital Exclusion, Privacy Concerns, and Technology Dependence
The panel emphasized that technologies can create problems as well as opportunities. Possible concerns include digital exclusion, privacy risks, technology dependence, and effects on attention, learning, and motivation.
For children and families, consent and screen-time questions require additional consideration. The authors also stressed that not everyone with ADHD will find the same digital tool helpful or accessible.
Authors’ Conclusions and Limitations
The authors conclude that the consensus provides a foundation for more coordinated, evidence-informed development and evaluation of digital health technologies for ADHD. Future research should translate these broad principles into practical guidelines supported by real-world evidence.
The researchers also acknowledge several limitations. Most panel members were based in the United Kingdom, and participants with lived experience of ADHD were exclusively UK residents. The panel’s interest in digital health may have limited the representation of more skeptical perspectives, while nonanonymous discussions could have introduced bias. The recommendations also remain broad, with emerging technologies such as AI and conversational chatbots requiring further investigation.
Conclusion
The consensus acknowledges the potential of digital health technologies to make ADHD-related support more accessible, flexible, and responsive to individual needs. At the same time, the researchers emphasize that realizing this potential requires rigorous scientific evaluation, collaboration with users, and careful integration into existing services. Future research will need to examine how these principles can be applied in practice.
The information in this article is provided for informational purposes only and is not medical advice. For medical advice, please consult your doctor.
Reference
Price, A., Furukawa, E., Bellato, A., Aggensteiner, P. M., Bellringer, M., Cattel, C., Cortese, S., Daley, D., Döpfner, M., Donno, F., Groom, M. J., Kaiser, A., Kini-Seery, C., Kostyrka-Allchorne, K., Kuntsi, J., Kyle, S., Liddle, E. B., Michelini, G., Nordby, E. S., Peres, N., Ruzive, T., Salimi, A., Sjöwall, D., Sonuga-Barke, E. J. S., Wenger, J., & Newlove-Delgado, T. (2026). Consensus Statement on Digital Health and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder by the European Network for ADHD (EUNETHYDIS): Modified Delphi Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 28, e85638. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/85638
