Report by Duncan Williams for Pulman's Weekly News
More people are being diagnosed with ADHD and autism than ever before. Is society finally recognising conditions that went unnoticed for generations, or are modern pressures and changing diagnostic practices contributing to the rise?
The number of people seeking diagnoses of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and autism has risen dramatically in recent years, leaving NHS services struggling to cope with demand.
The increase has prompted questions about whether more people are genuinely affected, whether previous generations were overlooked, and whether some everyday difficulties are now being interpreted as medical conditions.
There are also questions about the role of social media, the pressures of modern life and the possibility that a diagnosis can help people qualify for financial support.
A major independent review published by the Department of Health and Social Care on 9th October 2026 offers some of the clearest answers yet. It concludes that greater awareness and recognition have played a significant role, but warns that the rapid growth in diagnoses and referrals also creates risks of misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis.
The review does not conclude that overdiagnosis is occurring on a large scale. It says the evidence is not sufficient to establish that, partly because reliable, up-to-date estimates of how many people have ADHD or autism remain limited.
So what is happening, and what does the evidence tell us?
What do the figures show?
The increase in recorded diagnoses is substantial, particularly among children, teenagers and young adults.
According to the government’s review, recorded ADHD prevalence among children aged six to 11 in England rose more than sixfold between 2000 and 2025, from 0.45% to 2.7%. Among those aged 12 to 17, it rose more than 15-fold, from 0.26% to 3.88%.
The increase in recorded autism diagnoses has been even greater. Between 2000 and 2025, recorded prevalence rose more than 20-fold among six to 11-year-olds and more than 40-fold among those aged 12 to 17.
These figures describe people recorded as having a diagnosis in health data. They do not necessarily mean the underlying number of people with either condition has increased at the same rate.
That distinction is crucial.
The review says the best available population estimates suggest that the underlying prevalence of ADHD and autism has remained broadly stable or risen only modestly over recent decades. However, the evidence is incomplete, particularly for adults, and the available surveys do not provide a definitive picture of the population today.
At the same time, demand for assessment has surged. Monthly referrals for ADHD assessment increased from about 5,000 in 2019 to approximately 17,000 in 2024.
By the end of 2025, more than 560,000 people were awaiting ADHD assessment in the figures examined by the review. Subsequent NHS England monitoring has recorded even larger numbers of open referrals across its reporting systems.
Autism services are under similar pressure. NHS England reported almost 295,000 people with an open referral for suspected autism in June 2026. Most had been waiting longer than the recommended 13 weeks.
These are figures for England, where the most detailed current data is available. Health services and statistical reporting differ across the UK.
Sources: Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England.
Have previous generations been overlooked?
There is strong evidence that many people with ADHD or autism went through childhood and adulthood without being diagnosed.
In the past, ADHD was often associated primarily with disruptive boys who struggled to sit still in a classroom. People who were inattentive, daydreamed or had difficulty organising themselves could be dismissed as lazy, careless or lacking discipline.
Girls and women were particularly likely to be overlooked. Some may have developed ways of concealing their difficulties or worked exceptionally hard to compensate for them.
Autism was also less widely understood. People who did not fit traditional stereotypes, including those without learning disabilities, could reach adulthood without anyone recognising why they found social communication, change or sensory experiences difficult.
The government’s review identifies improved recognition among girls and women as one of the important changes behind rising diagnosis rates.
It is therefore reasonable to conclude that some of today’s increase reflects people finally receiving explanations for difficulties they have experienced for decades.
For an adult who has spent years struggling with concentration, relationships, education or employment, a diagnosis can provide a framework for understanding those experiences and accessing appropriate help.
But historical underdiagnosis does not necessarily explain every part of the increase. The scale and speed of the recent rise mean other factors also need to be considered.
Has social media changed how people view themselves?
Social media has made information about ADHD and autism more accessible than ever.
Videos, personal accounts and online communities can help people recognise experiences they previously struggled to explain. Someone who has spent years feeling different may discover that other people describe remarkably similar difficulties.
This can encourage people to seek a professional assessment and help reduce the stigma associated with neurodevelopmental conditions.
However, short online videos cannot establish a diagnosis.
Many characteristics associated with ADHD, such as distractibility, forgetfulness, restlessness and difficulty concentrating, can also occur in people without the condition. Stress, poor sleep, anxiety, depression and difficult circumstances can affect attention and behaviour.
Similarly, feeling socially awkward, preferring routines or finding busy environments uncomfortable does not automatically mean someone is autistic.
The distinction is between having some traits and meeting the clinical criteria for a condition.
A proper ADHD assessment considers a person’s developmental history, symptoms across different settings and the extent to which difficulties affect everyday functioning. Autism assessments also examine developmental history, communication, behaviour and the impact on daily life.
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence says ADHD diagnosis should be based on a full clinical and psychosocial assessment, rather than a questionnaire or isolated symptom.
The government’s review warns that greater public awareness can blur the boundary between recognising neurodivergent characteristics and identifying a diagnosable condition.
That does not mean people who recognise themselves in online accounts are imagining their difficulties. It means that self-recognition is a reason to explore those difficulties, not a substitute for a careful assessment.
Sources: NICE guidance on ADHD and the government’s independent review.
Is modern life making the problem worse?
This question requires a distinction between causing a neurodevelopmental condition and making its effects more difficult to manage.
ADHD and autism are neurodevelopmental conditions with strong genetic influences. They begin early in life, even when they are not recognised until adulthood.
There is no convincing evidence that the pressures of modern life alone explain the dramatic rise in recorded diagnoses.
However, circumstances can make existing difficulties more noticeable and more disabling.
The government’s review found that mental distress has genuinely increased, particularly among young people. The proportion of people aged 16 to 64 in England meeting criteria for a common mental disorder rose from 15.5% in 1993 to 22.6% in 2024. Among 16 to 24-year-olds, the proportion increased from around one in six to one in four.
The review identifies several pressures affecting wellbeing, including financial insecurity, housing difficulties, loneliness, social comparison and the demands of education. It also highlights the effects of the pandemic, although these trends began before Covid-19.
Social media can intensify feelings of comparison and scrutiny, while reduced opportunities for social connection, physical activity and rest may contribute to poorer mental health.
For someone with ADHD, a highly demanding environment may make problems with organisation, concentration and time management more difficult to overcome. For an autistic person, sensory overload, uncertainty or social demands may make daily life harder to navigate.
In some cases, psychological distress can also resemble or overlap with neurodevelopmental symptoms.
This creates a diagnostic challenge. A person may have ADHD, anxiety or depression, or a combination of conditions. A thorough assessment needs to distinguish between them rather than assuming that one explanation accounts for everything.
The evidence therefore supports a more nuanced conclusion: modern life may exacerbate difficulties and bring previously manageable problems to the surface, but it does not explain the underlying rise in recorded ADHD and autism diagnoses on its own.
Are people being diagnosed simply to claim benefits?
The question of financial incentives is sensitive, but it deserves a factual answer.
A diagnosis can be relevant when someone applies for disability-related support. It may help explain why a person experiences difficulties with daily tasks, communication, social interaction or managing their affairs.
However, an ADHD or autism diagnosis does not automatically qualify someone for disability benefits.
Personal Independence Payment (PIP), for example, is assessed according to how a person’s health condition or disability affects their ability to carry out specified daily living activities and get around. The assessment considers functional difficulties, including whether tasks can be completed safely, reliably and within a reasonable time.
Someone with ADHD or autism may qualify if their difficulties meet the relevant criteria. Someone with the same diagnosis who does not experience sufficient functional limitations may not qualify.
PIP can also be paid to people who work, so receiving it does not necessarily mean someone is unable to hold a job.
Universal Credit and other forms of support have different eligibility rules, which may involve assessments of work capability, income or other circumstances. Again, the diagnosis alone is not a universal passport to additional payments.
The government’s independent review does identify a structural problem: diagnosis has increasingly become a gateway to support in education, employment and parts of the welfare system. This can encourage people to pursue an assessment because they need practical help that is difficult to obtain without formal recognition of a condition.
That is not the same as deliberately inventing or exaggerating a condition to obtain money.
Benefit fraud exists, and deliberately providing false information to obtain payments is unlawful. But the rise in ADHD and autism diagnoses is not, by itself, evidence that people are claiming benefits dishonestly.
Nor does the available evidence establish that financial incentives are the principal reason for the increase.
The more useful question is whether people who genuinely need help can obtain it without having to navigate years of waiting or secure a particular diagnostic label first.
Sources: GOV.UK guidance on PIP and the government’s independent review.
Is there a risk of overdiagnosis?
Yes, and the government’s latest review says this risk deserves greater attention.
For years, the central concern was that people with ADHD or autism were being missed. That problem has not disappeared. But as assessments increase rapidly, questions arise about whether every diagnosis is accurate and whether some difficulties have other explanations.
There is no single blood test or scan that definitively establishes ADHD or autism. Diagnosis relies on clinical judgement, developmental history, symptoms, evidence from different settings and the impact on a person’s life.
The quality of an assessment matters. A brief or fragmented assessment may fail to identify other relevant conditions, while an assessment focused too narrowly on one diagnosis may overlook anxiety, depression, trauma or other difficulties.
Diagnostic criteria have also changed over time. Modern definitions recognise a broader range of autistic presentations and allow ADHD and autism to be diagnosed together. This means some people who would not have received the same diagnosis in the past may now meet the criteria.
The review says recorded diagnosis rates in some younger groups are approaching or exceeding older estimates of population prevalence. It warns that this raises legitimate concerns about misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis.
But it explicitly stops short of concluding that overdiagnosis is occurring on a large scale. The population estimates are dated, and differences in research methods make direct comparisons difficult.
The challenge is to improve the accuracy of assessments without returning to a system in which people with genuine needs are routinely overlooked.
What needs to change?
One of the central findings of the government’s review is that the current system relies too heavily on diagnosis as the gateway to support.
Children may struggle at school while waiting for an assessment. Adults may have difficulties at work or in relationships without knowing why. Families can spend months or years seeking answers, only to discover that a diagnosis does not necessarily lead to meaningful support.
The review calls for a shift towards a needs-led system, in which practical help can be provided before, during and after diagnostic assessment.
Schools could offer appropriate learning adjustments to children who are struggling, rather than making all support dependent on a formal diagnosis. Employers could make reasonable adjustments where a worker has demonstrable difficulties. People experiencing mental distress could receive appropriate help without having to establish that they have ADHD or autism.
At the same time, specialist assessment must remain available for people whose difficulties warrant it. High-quality diagnosis can be essential for understanding a person’s needs, guiding treatment and identifying appropriate support.
Better population data is also needed. Without reliable, up-to-date research into how many people have these conditions, it is difficult to determine precisely how much of the increase reflects improved recognition, changes in prevalence or diagnostic practices.
So, is this a genuine problem or a generational change?
The evidence points to several developments happening at once.
First, many people with ADHD and autism were overlooked in previous generations, particularly women and people whose difficulties did not fit familiar stereotypes.
Second, public awareness has grown, reducing stigma and encouraging people to seek explanations for longstanding problems.
Third, the mental health of young people has deteriorated in important respects, while the demands of modern life can make neurodevelopmental difficulties harder to manage.
Fourth, the number of people seeking assessments has grown faster than services can accommodate, creating long waits and increasing the importance of ensuring that assessments are thorough and accurate.
Finally, there is a legitimate need to guard against misdiagnosis and overdiagnosis. Recognising this risk does not mean dismissing people who struggle, any more than acknowledging historical underdiagnosis means every self-identified trait should result in a clinical diagnosis.
The latest evidence does not support the simple claim that ADHD and autism have suddenly become widespread because modern life is difficult, nor does it establish that the increase is primarily driven by people seeking benefits.
Instead, it reveals a complicated picture in which recognition, genuine need, social pressures and changes in diagnostic practice interact.
The task for health and public services is not simply to increase or reduce the number of diagnoses. It is to identify people accurately, understand the difficulties they face and ensure that appropriate help is available.
Ultimately, the success of the system should be measured not by how many people receive a label, but by whether people are better able to learn, work, maintain relationships and participate in everyday life.
( Photos: Unsplash 📸 )