Every ADHD TikTok study up to now has done the same thing: grabbed a batch of videos and graded them. Accurate, misleading, useful, nonsense — sorted into buckets, published, moved on. Nobody looked underneath the videos, at the thousands of comments where people actually talk to each other. A new study out of Keele University finally did, and it’s a messier, more human picture than any video-content audit could give you.

“Guess I’m not alone”: A qualitative exploration of ADHD, mental health, and self-diagnosis comment sections on TikTok, led by Dr. Katie Saunders of Keele University’s School of Medicine, was published in the Journal of Social Media Research in September 2026. It’s the first study built specifically to analyze what happens in the comments beneath ADHD and mental health TikToks — not the creators’ claims, the crowd’s reaction to them.

That’s a genuinely different question than the one the field has been asking. And it lands at a strange moment: the self-diagnosis debate is louder than it’s been in years, right as adult ADHD diagnoses are surging and a UK broadcaster just aired a documentary questioning whether ADHD is real at all. Comment sections are where those two forces — surging self-recognition and rising public doubt — actually collide in real time.

TL;DR: What the Study Found

Question	Answer
The study	”Guess I’m not alone”, Journal of Social Media Research, published September 2026
Who ran it	Dr. Katie Saunders, Keele University School of Medicine (research conducted during her PhD at Birmingham City University), with co-authors Mariel Marcano-Olivier, Josephine Cornell, and Athfah Akhtar
The data	TikTok API data from 2021-2023, hashtags including #ADHD, #MentalHealth, #Depression, #Anxiety, and #Selfdiagnosis, plus the comments underneath
What’s new	First study to systematically analyze the comment sections, not just the videos
The finding	Six recurring comment patterns, from peer support to direct cries for help to three separate stances on self-diagnosis
The catch	Real support and destigmatization, alongside misinformation risk and self-harm content in some threads
My take	The comments are doing something the videos alone never could — and something the videos alone can’t fix, either

What Did Researchers Actually Look At?

Saunders and her team pulled TikTok content tagged under mental-health-adjacent hashtags across 2021, 2022, and 2023 — #MentalHealth, #Depression, #Anxiety, #ADHD, #Selfdiagnosis — using TikTok’s API. Then, instead of stopping at the videos, they ran inductive thematic analysis on the comment sections underneath.

That second step is the whole contribution. Prior research — including a widely cited JMIR Infodemiology cross-sectional study published in November 2025 — has already told us plenty about the videos themselves. That study rated the 125 most-liked ADHD TikToks and found 50.4% contained misleading information: symptoms presented as ADHD-specific when they’re actually normal human behavior, or claims that overstate how common certain symptoms really are. Misleading videos, worse, got more engagement than accurate ones.

So the video layer of ADHD TikTok is already known to be shaky, close to a coin flip. What Saunders’ study asks is: what do people do with that shaky information once it hits the comments? Turns out, six distinct things.

What Are the Six Comment Patterns Researchers Found?

The thematic analysis surfaced six recurring ways people engage in ADHD and mental health comment sections:

1. Support and empathy. Straightforward encouragement — people validating a creator’s experience or cheering another commenter on.
2. Relating personal experience. Commenters connecting a video’s content to their own life, often in detail, building a kind of crowd-sourced case study underneath the original post.
3. Indirect cries for help. Comments that gesture at distress without naming it outright — the “this is literally me and I don’t know what to do” register.
4. Direct cries for help. Explicit requests for support or guidance, sometimes naming a crisis, sometimes naming a diagnosis they suspect but haven’t confirmed.
5. Affirming self-diagnosis. Commenters actively encouraging others to trust their own self-assessment, sometimes framing formal diagnosis as unnecessary or inaccessible.
6. Pushing back on self-diagnosis. The opposite camp — commenters explaining why they avoided formal diagnosis themselves, or arguing against the practice outright, sometimes sharply.

Read that list again and notice what it isn’t. It isn’t six flavors of the same thing. It’s peer support, crisis signaling, and an open ideological fight, all stacked in the same comment thread under the same fifteen-second video.

The Self-Diagnosis Fight Is Happening in Public, in Real Time

This is the part that should get more attention than it will. The study didn’t find one self-diagnosis stance in the comments — it found three, running simultaneously: people affirming it as valid, people explaining specific reasons they’ve avoided formal evaluation, and people pushing back against the whole practice as reckless or performative.

That tracks with what we’ve already seen driving people toward self-diagnosis in the first place. Cost, wait times, and — per Saunders’ findings — distrust of mental health professionals and fear of stigma all show up as stated reasons commenters give for skipping a formal workup. None of that is irrational. Adult ADHD diagnosis has exploded over the past two decades, and a lot of the people driving that number spent years being dismissed before anyone took a second look. Comment sections are where the backlog of “nobody believed me” finally gets an audience.

But an audience isn’t a clinician. The affirming and the skeptical camps are both operating on the same evidence — a video, a comment thread, a feeling of recognition — and reaching opposite conclusions about what to do with it. That’s not a bug in the system. There isn’t a system. It’s a few hundred strangers doing group diagnostics in a comments field with no moderation for accuracy, just for community norms.

The Support Is Real. So Is the Risk.

Here’s where I’d push back on anyone trying to flatten this into a clean “TikTok bad” or “TikTok good” story, because Saunders’ own framing doesn’t support either one. The support and empathy commenters aren’t performing community — plenty of that support looks genuine, specific, and useful to the person receiving it. Destigmatization is a real, documented effect of these spaces, not a marketing line the platform tells itself.

At the same time, the study flags something that shouldn’t get buried under the more shareable findings: some of these comment threads contained self-harm content. Not hypothetically — actually present, in threads under ADHD and mental health videos, mixed in with the support and the self-diagnosis debates. If you or someone you know is in crisis, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (call or text 988 in the US) is a better next step than a comments section, however well-meaning that comments section is.

Layer the misinformation numbers from the JMIR study on top of that — misleading videos out-performing accurate ones — and the picture Saunders is describing isn’t “TikTok is secretly great for ADHD” or “TikTok is secretly toxic.” It’s both mechanisms running in the same space, sometimes in the same thread, with no way for a scrolling teenager to tell which comment is peer wisdom and which is a stranger’s guess dressed up as diagnosis.

Why This Matters More Than a Typical Content-Quality Study

Most coverage of ADHD and social media so far has stopped at two questions: is the platform addictive, and are the videos accurate. A UCSF study we covered in August tackled the first question and found that rising compulsive use in teen boys predicted worse ADHD symptoms a year later — a feedback loop between the platform’s design and the condition itself. The JMIR study tackled the second and found the videos are wrong close to half the time.

Saunders’ study is the first to ask what happens after someone watches, in the space where people actually talk to each other instead of just consuming. That’s a different failure mode — and a different opportunity — than either prior study captured. A misleading video is a fixed, gradable artifact. A comment section is a live conversation that can support someone, mislead them, or expose them to something genuinely harmful, sometimes all three in the same scroll.

If you’ve felt like the “is ADHD TikTok content accurate” question was too narrow to explain why these spaces feel the way they do — supportive and unsettling at once — this is probably why. The video was never the whole story.

What Should You Actually Do With This?

A few things follow directly from what Saunders found, if you’re someone who spends time in these spaces yourself or you’re watching a kid do it:

Treat the comments as a mirror, not a diagnosis. Recognizing yourself in a thread full of relatable comments is real information about how you feel. It is not the same thing as a clinical evaluation, and the study’s own self-diagnosis skeptics have a point worth taking seriously even if their tone is harsh.

Notice which comment type you’re drawn to. If you’re consistently the one posting indirect or direct cries for help, that’s worth naming to yourself directly instead of leaving it in a comment thread where the response is a coin flip between a caring stranger and nothing at all.

Don’t assume the top comment is the accurate one. The JMIR study already showed misleading videos out-earn accurate ones on engagement. There’s no reason to assume the comment section escapes that same incentive — the most relatable comment and the most correct one are not guaranteed to be the same comment.

If self-diagnosis is where you’ve landed, use it as a starting point, not an endpoint. The commenters affirming self-diagnosis aren’t wrong that formal access is often broken — waitlists, cost, and dismissive providers are real barriers. But a self-assessment built from TikTok comments is a reason to pursue a formal evaluation when you can, not a replacement for one.

If the scrolling itself feels compulsive, that’s a separate problem worth naming. Content quality and platform design are two different issues stacked on top of each other. Our screen time and doomscroll-blocker roundup and social media redesign guide both deal with the second problem — useful even if the content you’re scrolling past happens to be accurate.

Our Take

The easy version of this story is “TikTok comment sections are a mess.” They are. But Saunders’ study is careful not to let that be the whole takeaway, and neither will I.

Real peer support is happening in these threads. People who spent years being dismissed by the people who were supposed to help them are finding, for the first time, a room full of strangers who believe them immediately. That’s not nothing, and it’s not going away because a study flags it as methodologically messy.

What the study actually argues for isn’t abandoning these spaces. It’s better labeling, more moderation attention on self-harm content specifically, and — for anyone reading this with their own ADHD suspicion — treating the comment section the way you’d treat a friend’s anecdote: worth hearing, not worth building a self-diagnosis on alone. The videos were already known to be wrong close to half the time. Now we know the conversation underneath them is doing something the videos never could, for better and for worse, sometimes in the exact same thread.

---

This post cites findings from Saunders, K.R., Marcano-Olivier, M., Cornell, J., & Akhtar, A., “Guess I’m not alone”: A qualitative exploration of ADHD, mental health, and self-diagnosis comment sections on TikTok, Journal of Social Media Research, 2026, and reporting from Keele University. Companion misinformation data from Sieferle et al., JMIR Infodemiology, November 2025. This is not medical advice. If you’re in crisis, contact the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline.