A recent episode of Four Corners examining ADHD contained inaccuracies relating to the Australasian ADHD Professionals Association (AADPA) and two nationally significant resources: the Australian Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for ADHD and the ADHD Prescribing Guide for Australian Healthcare Professionals.
To ensure clinicians, consumers and the wider community have access to accurate information, AADPA provides the following clarification regarding the development of these resources, funding and independence. AADPA has also written to the ABC to seek clarification and correction of these matters.
1. Independent validation of the Australian ADHD Guideline
The Australian Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for ADHD was developed through a rigorous, internationally recognised process and approved by Australia’s peak health and medical research body, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC).
In addressing the Guideline’s development and approval, NHMRC Chief Executive Officer Professor Steve Wesselingh stated: “it’s the gold standard of guidelines in Australia.”
This assessment reflects the NHMRC’s role in ensuring that guidelines approved under its processes meet the highest standards of methodological rigour, transparency, independence and evidence-based decision making.
2. How the Australian ADHD Guideline was developed under NHMRC standards
The Australian ADHD Guideline and AADPA’s Prescribing Guides were developed using a rigorous, evidence-based methodology, consistent with NHMRC requirements and international best practice. In this context, evidence-based refers to the process used to develop the guideline, rather than the availability of high-certainty trial evidence for every recommendation.
The Guideline was developed using the GRADE evidence-to-recommendation framework, as recommended by the NHMRC. This framework integrates:
- Systematic review of available research evidence (where sufficient evidence exists),
- Clinical expertise from a multidisciplinary guideline development group,
- Lived-experience perspectives, and
- Consideration of the balance between benefits and potential harms.
As is standard in guideline development—particularly in mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions—the Guideline includes different types of recommendations depending on the strength and availability of evidence:
- Evidence-based recommendations, informed by systematic reviews;
- Clinical consensus recommendations, developed where evidence was limited or insufficient, informed by structured narrative reviews and expert deliberation; and
- Clinical practice points, addressing important aspects of care that fall outside formal evidence reviews but are necessary for safe and effective practice.
Consensus-based recommendations are a core and recognised component of high-quality clinical guidelines, including those approved by the NHMRC and those developed by international bodies such as the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).
Consistent with this approach, the Australian ADHD Guideline was developed over two years through a nationally coordinated, transparent process. Its draft recommendations were made available for public comment and revised in response to these public comments, in accordance with NHMRC process.
It was approved by the NHMRC, endorsed by Australia’s relevant medical colleges, professional associations and major consumer organisations, all of which participated in its development.
The ADHD Prescribing Guide was developed under the same principles of independence, transparency and evidence-informed decision making, without external or industry funding.
3. Funding, sponsorship and conflicts of interest - INFORMATION CORRECTED
The program attributed a $24,500 sponsorship from Takeda to AADPA for a masterclass about the Guideline. Public records show that this payment was made to Inside Practice, a Sydney-based organisation that provides general practice support and education, not to AADPA. Following a complaint by AADPA this has now been corrected.
AADPA has never received funding from Takeda, Novartis, or any pharmaceutical company for the development of:
- the Australian Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for ADHD,
- the ADHD Prescribing Guide for Australian Healthcare Professionals, or
- the ADHD Prescribing Guide for the Continuation of Care and Co-Managed Care in General Practice.
The Australian ADHD Guideline was funded by the Australian Government and developed in accordance with NHMRC guideline development standards.
Like many professional associations, AADPA accepts sponsorship from a range of organisations, including pharmaceutical companies, solely to offset the considerable costs of staging its annual conference. Sponsors have no role in the program development and no influence over content or educational materials.
Our Commitment and FAQs
AADPA remains committed to promoting safe, effective and evidence-informed diagnosis, treatment and support for people living with ADHD in Australasia. The ADHD Guideline and Prescribing Guides continue to provide an important foundation for consistent, best-practice ADHD care nationwide.
To support accurate understanding of funding, sponsorship and independence, AADPA has also prepared a short set of frequently asked questions addressing common points of confusion. These FAQs explain how the Australian ADHD Guideline was funded and how independence from industry influence is maintained in accordance with NHMRC standards.
Does AADPA accept sponsorship or other funds from pharmaceutical companies?
Yes, but only for a clearly defined purpose. AADPA accepts sponsorship from a range of organisations, including pharmaceutical companies, to offset the costs of staging its annual conference. Sponsors have no role in Conference program or operations.
Did pharmaceutical companies fund or influence the development of the Australian ADHD Guideline?
No. The Guideline was funded by the Australian Government and developed in accordance with NHMRC-approved standards. Pharmaceutical companies had no involvement in the development process and no influence over its content or recommendations. All recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary guideline development group using the GRADE evidence-to-recommendation framework.
Why does NHMRC approval matter?
NHMRC approval requires that a guideline meet rigorous standards for independence from industry influence, methodological transparency, and use of recognised evidence-based methods. The Australian ADHD Guideline met all of these requirements. NHMRC CEO Professor Steve Wesselingh has described it as “the gold standard of guidelines in Australia.”
How are conflicts of interest managed in guideline development?
Conflicts of interest for all Guideline Development Group members were formally declared at the outset and managed throughout the process in line with NHMRC requirements — including exclusion from voting on recommendations where a relevant conflict existed. Transparent conflict-of-interest management is a mandatory condition of NHMRC guideline approval. Read AADPA’s Conflict of Interest Policy here.
Did AADPA receive $24,500 from Takeda for a masterclass about the Guideline?
No. AADPA did not receive this payment. Public records show it was made to Inside Practice, a Sydney-based organisation providing general practice support and resources.
Has AADPA received pharmaceutical funding for the Guideline, the Prescribing Guide, or any clinical, educational or training resources it has produced?
No. AADPA has never accepted funding from Takeda, Novartis, Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) or any pharmaceutical company for the development of any clinical guideline, prescribing guide, or educational or training resource it has produced.
