select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
Experts comment on an interim report commissioned by Health Secretary Wes Streeting into the rise in ADHD and Autism, as reported by the Times.
Dr Amanda Roestorf, Director of Research at Autistica, said:
“The interim review of the prevalence of autism, ADHD and mental health shows that rising diagnoses are largely about better awareness and identification e.g., of autism, ADHD, not a sudden increase in the number of autistic or ADHD people.
“The Times coverage promotes misinformation and risks oversimplifying what is a complex and carefully balanced interim review.
“The review does not conclude that children are being ‘incentivised’ to seek diagnoses. It highlights that demand is increasing in a system where diagnosis is the main path to support.
“The real issue is that people are waiting too long for support. Many are left without help for months or years, which can make things worse.
“At Autistica, our priority is making sure people get support earlier, based on their needs, rather than having to wait for a diagnosis to access help.”
Prof Uta Frith, Emeritus Professor of Cognitive Development, UCL University College London, said:
“It is good to know that the independent review into mental health conditions, ADHD and autism is proceeding swiftly. However, the interim report does not raise hopes that we will know what to do about the mounting pressure on services.
“The report contains many graphs plotting the occurrence of signs and symptoms over time, almost all showing steeply rising slopes. What I found interesting is the distinction between underlying prevalence and administrative prevalence. These two strands of data tell a different story. If I understood correctly, the underlying prevalence of ADHD and autism seems to be relatively stable and may well indicate a biological category. The administrative prevalence, however, is driven by social factors, and may indicate a different overlapping social category. This is where sharp acceleration is found and the pressure on services. But are psychiatric clinics the right services?”
Rachel Moseley, Principal Academic in Psychology and Deputy Editor, Autism in Adulthood, said:
“It’s worrying to see the interim report tout the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) as “the strongest epidemiological evidence” of autism prevalence in adults. The 1% prevalence rate which has emerged consistently across the 2007, 2014 and most recent rendition of the survey is a marked underestimation when compared to recent population data studies. Authoritative scholars on the subject suggest that 2% may present a more realistic estimate of the UK’s autistic population, with anywhere between 435,700 and 1,197,300 people living undiagnosed, the majority of these being older adults and people assigned female at birth (see, for e.g., O’Nions et al., 2023; Stewart & Happe, 2026).
“It’s very telling that the APMS reports an eightfold greater prevalence of autism in people assigned male at birth, while again, recent population studies demonstrate almost equal parity in the numbers of autistic males and females (see, for e.g., Fyfe and colleagues, 2026). The reason why the APMS may miss so many autistic women is likely because it relies on screening and assessment tools which reliably under-detect autism in people assigned female at birth, as well as other minorities (like people of colour). For instance, the ADOS-2, used in the APMS, is 2.5 times more likely to fail to detect women already known to be autistic (D’Mello et al., 2022).
“As prevalence allows governments to estimate and allocate resources for services, it’s extremely worrying that the government might draw on data which misses large swathes of the autistic community. The needs of undiagnosed neurodivergent people do not go away if the government fails or refuses to recognise them. Rather, the academic, employment, day-to-day disadvantages, as well as much higher rates of mental illness and suicide, have at their root gaps in services, as we recently showed (Moseley et al., 2026). Failure to meet people’s needs results in these detrimental economic outcomes and devastating individual costs.”
“These headlines paint a seductively simplistic view of individual attempts to manipulate the system. They do not reflect the realities of our research and of the Autism Act Review from last year, where there is very little by way of support given to children OR adults diagnosed as autistic, but where the diagnosis is itself profoundly stigmatised; nor do they reflect the reality that autistic children and adults are dying, especially by suicide, because of insufficient support.”
Dr Sameer Jauhar, Clinical Associate Professor in Affective Disorders and Psychosis, Imperial College London, said:
“Despite possibly simplistic headlines, with emphasis on possible over diagnosis, the authors of this report have produced a nuanced and thoughtful piece of work, that is wide-ranging in its scope.
“For me, the main message is that a whole systems approach is required across society-not just the NHS. Whilst we have encouraged people to talk about distress and mental health, we now need to be more clear on what this actually means, and how this can be tackled at individual, family, school and societal levels.
“As ever, we must make sure that those with the highest level of impairment-who may not be as vocal-receive adequate treatment, as their needs may well increase in the context of increased social stressors, as seen with physical illness.”
Dr Steven Kapp, Senior Lecturer in Psychology, University of Portsmouth, said:
“The UK Government’s review into autism, ADHD, and mental health disabilities reflects the belief of many clinicians that a growing number of people self-identify or self-diagnose autism or ADHD inaccurately, but that is arguably a misconception. In recent research I co-authored, adults who self-identified with autism reported similar autistic traits and understanding of autism but had higher unmet needs, distress, and unemployment than adults with formal diagnoses in our study. Other research has found that neurodivergent people, aware of inaccuracies of information online, do not appear to rely on social media such as TikTok to self-identify, but rather to find community. As an autistic academic who influenced the autism diagnosis in the DSM-5, the current system recognizes the importance of social context and learned behaviour in masking autism, but if anything it narrowed the diagnostic scope. Instead, the review seems to be an economically driven document dressed up as scientific decision-making.”
Dr Monique Botha, Associate Professor in Social and Developmental Psychology, Durham University, said:
“This is a wide-ranging review, but its conclusions should be interpreted with appropriate caution. It accurately reflects that distress is increasing and that services are under pressure, but it places significant emphasis on uncertainty around diagnosis without fully accounting for longstanding under-recognition and structural barriers to access. The report frames itself as neutral, but in doing so it reproduces a familiar pattern: it treats the rise in diagnosis as analytically suspicious while failing to fully account for the historical under-recognition, structural exclusion, and epistemic injustice that shape who is seen, believed, and supported, particularly putting girls and women in the firing line. This report is not above the politics of it all, it’s distinctly a part of the politics of it all when the government is actively trying to cut SEN support including access to EHCPs and as they often lose tribunals.
“The evidence base it draws on is strong in parts—particularly population surveys—but these have known limitations and often miss the very groups most affected, while lived experience is treated as supplementary rather than central. And if we were to consider other figures such as how few adults on NHS records have diagnoses it could be argued strongly that under diagnosis is still an issue across the NHS. The suggestion that rising diagnoses may reflect over-medicalisation risks overstating the case and is not clearly supported by the balance of evidence, which is equally consistent with improved recognition. It is hard not to see that claims of over medicalization are also politically expedient when the waiting lists for diagnoses now means some will wait between two to eight years for assessment. In real-world terms, the report risks shifting attention away from the social and systemic drivers of distress after years of austerity, a global pandemic, and rising economic insecurity and toward questioning diagnostic legitimacy, at a time when diagnosis is often the main route to support, self-understanding, and peer support. One thing is clear which is that under diagnosed and unsupported neurodivergence is associated with extreme risks of suicidality, depression, homelessness, job insecurity, exclusion from schools, victimisation, interpersonal violence, and intersecting chronic illness. Failing to recognize or name neurodivergence during childhood will and does pass the buck into adulthood and on to other services, then often compounded by the trauma of the consequences of missed and mis-recognition.”
Interim Report: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-into-mental-health-conditions-adhd-and-autism-interim-report; https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/69cbdb2369dd81b3f213c660/independent-review-into-mental-health-conditions-ADHD-and-autism-interim-report.pdf
Declared interests
Dr Amanda Roestorf: Autistica is the UK’s leading autism research and campaigning charity. Their Mission is to create breakthroughs that enable all autistic people to live happier, healthier, longer lives. They do this through research, shaping policy and working with autistic people. Autistica is a philanthropically funded charity who receives funding from a variety of sources including trusts and foundations, major donors, corporate organisations, and UK Research Institutes. Autistica is registered with the Charity Commission. UK Registered Charity number: 1107350
Dr Monique Botha: No interests to declare
Steven Knapp: No interests to declare
Dr Sameer Jauhar:
Honoraria for educational talks given for Sunovian, Lundbeck, Recordati, Boehringer-Ingelheim and Janssen, on psychosis.
Advisory Board, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Accord Pharmaceuticals
NICE Health Technology appraisals on drugs for tardive dyskinesia and schizophrenia.
Wellcome Trust panel
Ex-Council Member, British Association for Psychopharmacology.
Rachel Moseley: No conflicts of interest from my side
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.