As with the recent BBC article focusing on Uta 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...
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)).
Were you relying on this Guardian article? If so, that's only for England, not for the UK.
I think that Google's AI thingy was using that as its main source, yes. Stats seems more locked down elsewhere, but a similarly varied picture UK-wide wouldn't be too surprising I suppose.
It's difficult to assess, as Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own separate NHS. Also, Scotland partly self-funds via Scottish taxation, which differs from the other three countries, and gives it some autonomy in spending.
It's difficult to assess, as Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own separate NHS. Also, Scotland partly self-funds via Scottish taxation, which differs from the other three countries, and gives it some autonomy in spending.
