As with the recent BBC article focusing on Una Frith's scepticism etc., (and even though I'm loooooooong past being a 'young person'), I felt sufficiently triggered this morning to do a compulsive deep-dive (one I don't have the energy or mental robustness for right now) into all manner of things I've rigorously checked into before, and yet 'imposter syndrome' of course has to kick into high gear anyway, and I need something like 'good enough' closure/reassurance all over again. So, it went something like...What are the diagnostic rates for the place that privately assessed me? (OK, no public information. Makes sense.) Are they regulated/monitored to a high degree, and do all their credentials appear to be trustworthy? (short answer: yes). What is the general UK-ish private autism assessment confirmed diagnosis percentage? (97% - whaaaat?- in some places -ah, Ok, 14% in other places - huh???, 80 is some others... so basically all over the map... literally (and figuratively)).
Anyway, that's the self-focused/hyperfocussed bit. Looking at it again with the anxiety soothed a little, I see that the report author is saying that the really damaging talk about mental health conditions being 'overdiagnosed' should be dialed down as the numbers are authentic. At the same time, autism seems to be getting a little thrown under the bus in terms of some people being written off as spontaneously anxious people with a bunch of loose adjacent traits. Not sure how I feel about that - sounds a bit dangerously reductive, though I'm sure that to be fair the report in full (maybe even in summary) won't have it quite so bluntly put.
The really dispiriting bit is that, given its a story where the critical mass of the thing is to say 'Streeting is wrong, mental health diagnosis rates in general are correct'.. look at what is pulled out of that to form the main headline... the bit that will speak to Daily Mail-reading die-hard sceptic types sitting in the Cotswalds fuming about support benefits for the 'undeserving' etc. It seems a cynical and agenda-accomodating choice for the BBC site to have made, and that's disappointing, ... worrying...
I've taken the following from the BBC reporting. It's worth bearing in mind that this is only for England.
"The author of today's report, Prof Peter Fonagy, has been speaking to Radio 4's Today programme. He starts by saying that former Health Secretary Wes Streeting - who first commissioned the review - was "with respect, completely wrong" when he talked about an over-diagnosis of mental health disorders. His findings show that "there has been a rise in distress and mental ill health amongst young people which is very, very real," he says, noting that one in five cases require treatment. Fonagy says that mental health distress in 25-year-olds is up by 50% since 1993, particularly anxiety and depression. He says that these "worsen the traits of ADHD and autism" so as awareness of these conditions has increased.
Professor Peter Fonagy, who chaired the review, has outlined three key findings in an interview with BBC Breakfast:
A "very real substantial rise in mental ill-health", particularly among young people - it increased by 50% between 1993 and the present day
An increase in the "co-occurrence of different diagnoses", meaning more people have common mental disorders (like anxiety and depression) as well as ADHD and autism
An increase in the number of diagnoses of people with ADHD and autism, rather than a rise in how many people have either condition.
Bridget Phillipson, the Labour Party's chair, is doing the government's media round this morning... she says "better access to mental health services" is needed "in the community and also in schools" - adding that the government is working on this."
All of this sounds good, not bad. It's brought up the issue of the appalling support for people. Yes, it's concentrating oin children, but this is the beginning of the discussion.
