Britain is facing a troubling paradox. More children than ever are being diagnosed with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), yet hundreds of thousands are still waiting for assessments and essential support.
A landmark 607-page government-commissioned review has raised concerns that the country could be approaching a tipping point, moving from decades of underdiagnosis towards an increased risk of misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis.
The figures are extraordinary. The proportion of teenagers aged 12 to 17 with a recorded autism diagnosis has risen more than 40-fold since 2000, while ADHD diagnoses in the same age group have increased more than 15-fold.
But behind the statistics lies a more complicated question: are these increases evidence of a genuine rise in neurodevelopmental conditions, better recognition of previously overlooked difficulties, or a system increasingly inclined to medicalise childhood?
NEWSLETTER TABLE TALK
Never miss a story.
Subscribe now.
The most important news & topics every week in your inbox.
Speaking to TO VIMA, Philip Asherson, Emeritus Professor of Neurodevelopmental Psychiatry at King’s College London, identified several factors behind the increase, including “increased awareness”, a rise in co-occurring mental health conditions and “potential misdiagnosis of other mental health conditions”.
He also pointed to “increased pressure to perform well in education and employment” and “potential over diagnosis by some private companies”.
His assessment reflects the central dilemma confronting Britain’s healthcare system: how to identify those who genuinely need specialist treatment without turning every behavioural or emotional difficulty into a medical diagnosis.
The extraordinary rise in diagnoses
The scale of the increase has startled researchers and policymakers alike.
In 2000, just 0.1 per cent of teenagers aged 12 to 17 had a recorded autism diagnosis. By 2025, the figure had reached 4.06 per cent.
Among children aged six to eleven, recorded autism diagnoses increased from 0.24 per cent to 4.58 per cent over the same period.
ADHD diagnoses have followed a similarly dramatic trajectory, with recorded prevalence among teenagers rising from 0.26 per cent to 3.88 per cent.
Yet the review, led by Professor Peter Fonagy of University College London, cautions against confusing recorded diagnoses with the actual prevalence of these conditions.
The best available estimate of autism prevalence among young people remains approximately 1.2 per cent, although the authors acknowledge that the underlying research is outdated.
For decades, ADHD and autism were frequently overlooked, particularly among girls and women. Greater awareness has undoubtedly helped people whose difficulties might previously have gone unrecognised.
However, the review warns that the balance of risks may now be changing.
Professor Sir Simon Wessely, a psychiatrist and vice-chair of the review, warned of a potential tipping point towards overdiagnosis and over-medicalisation.
Crucially, the authors do not conclude that widespread overdiagnosis is already occurring. They argue that the available evidence is insufficient to establish its scale.
The TikTok generation: Is social media changing young minds?
The review also turns its attention to the digital environment in which today’s children are growing up.
Smartphones, TikTok, Instagram and YouTube Shorts have transformed how young people communicate, learn and compare themselves with others.
The report cites a review of 71 studies involving almost 100,000 participants that found associations between short-form video consumption and attention problems, anxiety and stress.
But the evidence does not establish a direct causal relationship.
Young people with existing attentional difficulties may be particularly attracted to fast-moving digital content, rather than developing those difficulties because of it.
Nevertheless, the review finds that constant notifications, digital interruptions and the endless availability of stimulating material can undermine concentration in the short term.
Social media also exposes young people to unprecedented levels of comparison.
Carefully curated images of beauty, popularity and success can intensify feelings of inadequacy, particularly among girls and young women.
Research examined by the review links appearance-focused social media use with body dissatisfaction, lower self-esteem and depressive symptoms.
Asked by TO VIMA about the impact of social media, excessive screen time, academic pressures and the pandemic, Professor Asherson pointed to the review’s findings.
“The Fonagy report concludes that rates of anxiety and depression are increasing,” he said, adding: “Presumably in relation to stressors as you suggest.”
His comments underline the difficulty of isolating any single explanation for the deterioration in young people’s mental wellbeing.
A generation under pressure – and losing hope
The review paints a disturbing picture of a generation facing mounting psychological and economic pressures.
Housing has become increasingly unaffordable, employment feels less secure and educational competition has intensified.
Professor Fonagy has warned that, for the first time since the Second World War, surveys suggest young people no longer expect their lives to be better than those of their parents.
The mental health statistics are equally concerning.
The proportion of adults aged 16 to 64 meeting the criteria for a common mental disorder rose from 15.5 per cent in 1993 to 22.6 per cent in 2024.
Among 16 to 24-year-olds, the figure has increased from approximately one in six to one in four.
Self-harm and eating disorders have also become more prevalent among young adults.
The report is unequivocal that this rise in psychological distress is real and cannot be explained simply by improved awareness or changing attitudes towards mental health.
The challenge is determining when distress requires medical intervention and when the response should instead address loneliness, insecurity, educational pressure or other environmental factors.
The NHS crisis: Why a diagnosis has become a passport to help
For many families, securing an ADHD or autism diagnosis is not merely about understanding a child’s difficulties.
It can be the first step towards accessing educational adjustments, specialist services and practical assistance.
But this diagnosis-dependent system has created enormous pressure on an already overstretched NHS.
By the end of 2025, more than 560,000 ADHD referrals remained open, while more than 254,000 people were awaiting autism assessments.
The review warns that the longer people wait, the greater the risk that their difficulties will worsen.
Professor Asherson believes the system requires fundamental change.
Asked by TO VIMA whether support should continue to depend on a formal diagnosis, his response was unequivocal:
“Support should not depend on a clinical diagnosis.”
He stressed, however, that medical assessment remains essential for some patients.
“However if the problems are severe there are effective medical treatments for ADHD, when a diagnosis will be needed.”
Professor Asherson also proposed a practical alternative to the current system.
“Educational psychologists, assessors and occupational therapists could be trained to identify characteristics of ADHD sufficient to obtain initial non-medical support,” he said.
“Next step would be referral for formal diagnosis and treatment.”
His conclusion was clear: “We need greater input from primary care and psychology.”
Such an approach could allow children experiencing genuine difficulties to receive assistance much earlier, without waiting months or years for a specialist appointment.
Private ADHD clinics face a reckoning
The independent review also raises serious concerns about the rapidly expanding private assessment industry.
Independent providers now conduct more than half of NHS-funded ADHD assessments and more than a third of autism assessments.
Spending on independent-sector ADHD services has increased by approximately 252 per cent in three years.
The review highlights inconsistent assessment standards, limited oversight and concerns about financial incentives.
Professor Asherson’s warning about “potential over diagnosis by some private companies” adds to the debate about whether commercial pressures could influence diagnostic practices.
The report recommends that all ADHD and autism diagnostic assessments should fall under Care Quality Commission regulation.
It also proposes banning direct-to-public advertising of NHS-funded assessments.
However, the authors acknowledge that independent providers can play an important role in reducing NHS waiting lists. The concern is not private provision itself, but whether standards and accountability have kept pace with its expansion.
Could a diagnosis limit a child’s future?
Perhaps the most sensitive question raised by the review concerns the long-term consequences of diagnostic labels.
For many people, an accurate diagnosis can be life-changing, providing understanding, access to effective treatment and appropriate adjustments.
But the report also warns that an inaccurate or poorly used diagnosis can shape how children see themselves and how others perceive their abilities.
It cautions against defining young people by their difficulties rather than their strengths, circumstances and potential.
The wider economic implications are significant.
Around one million young people aged 16 to 24 are not in education, employment or training.
Children diagnosed with ADHD before the age of 17 are approximately four times more likely to be outside education, employment or training in early adulthood than those without ADHD.
That association does not mean diagnosis causes unemployment or educational disadvantage. It highlights the importance of effective support for young people who may already face substantial barriers.
A radical rethink: Help children first, diagnose when necessary
The review’s central recommendation is to move away from a system in which diagnosis acts as the principal gateway to support.
Instead, assistance should be based on individual needs, with formal assessments and specialist treatment available when clinically necessary.
The government has also been urged to strengthen community mental health services, improve diagnostic standards, invest in prevention and develop a long-term strategy.
For Professor Asherson, the distinction between immediate support and formal medical diagnosis is particularly important.
His proposed approach would allow appropriately trained professionals to recognise difficulties and provide initial assistance, while ensuring that those with more severe ADHD can still access specialist assessment and effective treatment.
Ultimately, the debate is not simply about whether Britain is diagnosing too many children or too few.
It is about whether a healthcare and education system increasingly organised around diagnostic categories is capable of responding to the complex realities of childhood.
The Fonagy review offers a stark warning: recognising a condition is not the same as helping someone live with it.
For a generation struggling with unprecedented pressures, the measure of success should not be how many labels the system delivers, but how many young people it enables to learn, work, build relationships and flourish.