MJB ADHD · Static reading view · Interactive version
Status: drafted · Content checked 2026-10-06
How to read coverage of ADHD services critically — separating the data, the framing and the questions left out — without inferring coordination.
Coverage of ADHD in 2025–26 has often centred on rising diagnosis rates, private provider growth and public cost. Those are legitimate subjects. The useful question is what each piece measures, what it assumes, and what it leaves out.
A Financial Times article of 4 October 2026 focused on provider growth, public expenditure and assessment quality, while also acknowledging unmet need and NHS capacity problems.
W7For each article, log: date; the exact claim; the underlying data; the caveats given; whether patients were heard; and the question not asked (for example, what happens to people whose treatment stops).
Revenue figures cannot establish whether diagnoses are valid or invalid; that needs clinical evidence. Similar themes across outlets show repetition; shared intent would need separate evidence. Scrutiny should look at diagnostic accuracy, timely access, continuity and outcomes together.
Provider figures and forecasts in press coverage were not independently audited for this guide.