For World Neurodiversity Celebration Week, HMRI researchers explore a question many people are asking. Is neurodiversity actually increasing, or are we simply getting better at recognising it?
While diagnoses of ADHD and autism have risen in recent years, this does not necessarily mean neurodivergence itself is becoming more common. Instead, a combination of improved research, broader diagnostic criteria, greater public awareness and long-overdue recognition of women and underrepresented groups has reshaped how neurodiversity is identified.
Rising diagnosis rates are often interpreted as evidence that conditions such as ADHD and autism are becoming more prevalent. However, many researchers say the numbers tell a more nuanced story about improvements in screening and recognition.
Dr Laura Roche, a senior lecturer at the University of Newcastle and HMRI researcher, explains that the idea neurodivergence is rapidly increasing may be a misunderstanding of how diagnosis works.
“What the evidence really shows is that our screening tools and diagnostic process is really good at identifying more individuals who might be neurodivergent and also capturing the variability in the lived experience of those who feel that they are neurodivergent,” she says.
Advances in diagnostic frameworks and clinical awareness have allowed clinicians to recognise a wider spectrum of traits than in the past.
Dr Patrick Skippen, Head of Data Management and Health Informatics at HMRI, says improved data collection is also playing a significant role in the apparent rise in numbers.
“Better tools and more active screening allow us to have more data,” he says. “This means we’re capturing more, but it doesn’t mean anyone has a higher risk or prevalence.”
In other words, the increase in diagnoses may reflect better visibility rather than a true surge in neurodivergence.
Part of the reason diagnoses appear to be increasing is that early research captured a very narrow picture of neurodivergence.
Many early studies focused primarily on young boys who displayed more obvious behavioural differences, meaning other presentations were often overlooked.
According to Dr Roche, these early studies tended to reflect what researchers expected to see.
“When we think about how we have looked at autism in the past and neurodivergence, it’s mostly those behavioural observations capturing the classical, often male, presentation of some of these types of differences.”
This narrow focus meant that people whose experiences did not match those patterns were frequently missed.
Dr Roche notes that women, in particular, often develop strategies such as masking, where neurodivergent traits may be hidden or expressed differently compared to males.
Listening more closely to lived experience is now helping researchers identify the broader range of ways neurodivergence can present.
Dr Skippen says early datasets also created a distorted baseline for research.
“Early studies mostly captured whoever made it to referral clinics, which was often boys with externalised behaviours, so lots of people were missed from the data. That set a skewed baseline and we’ve been correcting that with population-based science ever since,” he says.
Today, population-based research and improved sampling methods are helping scientists build a more representative understanding of neurodiversity.
Understanding trends in diagnosis relies on strong research practices and careful interpretation of data.
Dr Skippen says practices such as transparent protocols, data sharing and peer review help researchers minimise bias and ensure findings are robust.
These safeguards give scientists insight into whether changes in diagnostic rates reflect genuine shifts in prevalence or simply improvements in detection.
He says people should also approach media headlines about rising diagnoses with a critical eye.
“If different studies don’t have the same denominator, you may as well be comparing apples and oranges,” he says.
Changes in diagnostic criteria, screening methods or study populations can all influence reported rates, making direct comparisons difficult.
Dr Roche adds that discussions about diagnosis must also acknowledge the personal realities behind the statistics.
“A diagnosis is a lengthy and vulnerable process,” she says. “First you have to go and see a GP and be really open and honest about your challenges, which can put you in a really vulnerable position.”
The process often involves multiple specialist assessments.
“Then you will be on a waitlist to see either, if it’s your child, a paediatrician, or if you’re an adult, a psychologist or a psychiatrist.”
Depending on where someone lives, the wait can stretch up to a year and the process can be expensive.
For many individuals, diagnosis represents a significant step toward understanding their experiences.
“People aren’t just going and getting diagnosed for the sake of it, it’s a really long life-changing process and there’ll be really strong motivations behind why someone would get diagnosed,” she says.
Rather than focusing solely on rising numbers, researchers say the conversation should shift toward a broader understanding of neurodiversity.
Dr Roche explains that while neurodivergent individuals may experience challenges, they also bring valuable perspectives and strengths.
“Every neurotype is incredible and should be celebrated,” she says. “Alongside those challenges are some really incredible strengths and they are real assets to society.”
Recognising this diversity means moving beyond simplistic narratives about increasing diagnoses and focusing instead on inclusion, understanding and support.
By looking beyond the headlines and appreciating the science behind the numbers, it becomes clear that neurodiversity has always been part of our communities. What has changed is that research is finally recognising it more fully and capturing the full range of human experience.
