New findings about mental distress from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey
The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) is a survey of adults in England (people over 16) which has been carried out five times since 1993 with the most recent findings released in June 2025. The survey has used the same questionnaires and screening tools consistently each time so that we can compare changes in the nation’s mental health over time. The “survey” is in fact a full face-to-face or remote interview. Participants are asked about any mental health conditions they have been diagnosed with and any treatments received; it also uses questionnaires and screening tools to assess current levels of mental health and possible diagnoses. The most recent APMS study interviewed 6912 people and carried out follow-up clinical interviews with 880 people.
The key findings from the most recent APMS survey show that poor mental health has continued to increase in England. In particular, the most common problems, referred to as “common mental health conditions” or CMHCs (e.g. depression, anxiety, phobias, panic) are experienced by 20% of adults. More striking are the very marked inequalities revealed. CMHCs are almost twice as common in women compared to men; and are more than twice as common in 16-24 year olds than over 75 year olds. Among 16-24 year olds, the prevalence of CMHCs has risen from 17.5% in 2007 to 25.8% in 2023/4. There are regional differences (North East and East Midlands having the highest prevalence) and socioeconomic differences with the highest prevalence (26.2%) in the most deprived areas.
How did the authors interpret the findings?
The APMS report does provide a set of methodological issues that should be taken into account by those interpreting the data; but it does not draw out any specific policy or clinical implications at all. Press releases and websites linked to the authors state only the key findings. The findings the authors highlight are: the increasing prevalence over time of several mental health conditions; the stark increases and prevalence rates for young people in particular; the very clear socio-economic gradient in the findings; the association between physical and mental health; and an observed increase over time in numbers of people receiving treatment (both medication and psychological treatments).
How did others interpret the findings?
An interesting feature of the report’s reception has been the different emphases in how we should interpret these findings and what we should do about it as a society.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ press release noted:
“The new Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) data highlights a worrying trend of rising mental ill-health in England, with the prevalence of common mental health conditions (CMHCs) having significantly increased over the last decade, particularly among young adults and those living in deprived communities… It’s striking that fewer than half of those experiencing mental health problems are receiving treatment. This reflects the chronic underinvestment in mental health care. Our members see the consequences of this every day; psychiatrists are making difficult decisions under pressure, patients are waiting too long for care, and services are stretched beyond capacity.”
This is an interesting take given the APMS in fact found a large increase in numbers of people being treated for mental health conditions. The APMS does find a “treatment gap” and this gap is also seen in other literature finding a significant number of people experiencing symptoms of CMHCs but not receiving treatment. However, the APMS findings primarily emphasise an increase in treatment receipt. In 2007, the APMS found 10.4% of people with CMHC symptoms receiving psychological treatments and 19.6% receiving medication. In 2023/4, this has risen to 17.9% and 38.4% respectively. Therefore, successive government policy over 20 years of increasing treatment (especially medical treatments) has occurred over the same time period as a significant worsening of mental health across the nation. This does not seem to support the idea that we just need more and more treatment to address the rise and rise in mental distress.
Other responses to the APMS data appear to have focused more on the implications for root causes of mental distress. The Mental Health Foundation media briefing notes:
“These worrying findings clearly demonstrate that England is struggling with growing levels of poor mental health and the legacy of failure of successive governments to tackle the root causes of mental health problems… with a global pandemic and cost of living crisis having dominated the early 2020s, which affected many people’s wellbeing dramatically. Many of the building blocks of life that we rely on to be mentally well – like a good home, a solid income, and a welcoming community – have become more fractured and difficult to access, which has no doubt contributed to the numbers we see today.”
Similarly the Centre for Mental Health notes:
“There are deep and entrenched inequalities in mental health, and today’s figures underline that. For example, women and young adults, in particular, are experiencing disproportionately high levels of psychological distress. The study also highlights elevated rates among people living in the most deprived areas, and those living with physical health conditions. This is not inevitable. It is due to structural inequity and injustice, and it is within society’s power to address these unfair differences. It is also clear that cutting disability and incapacity benefits at a time of rising mental ill health will have disastrous consequences, and we urge the Government to rethink its plans to restrict access to these vital provisions.”
Whilst both these responses emphasise the societal causes of distress, which are supported by the APMS findings, neither fully acknowledge the timescale and the paradox at the heart of the APMS findings. For example, APMS surveys show the increases in prevalence stretching back to well before the pandemic and current cost of living crisis referred to by the Mental Health Foundation. Likewise, the current political drama over welfare cuts referred to by the Centre for Mental Health is surely but a symptom of a much more fundamental problem in our entire societal approach to mental distress.
Indeed the very different responses from different sectors of society to the APMS report perhaps highlights part of the problem – that mental health is now a political tool, with key data and research findings being used for rhetorical or political purposes, to argue both for one thing and another. To argue for welfare and against it. To argue for more treatment or less treatment. To argue for or against the government; for or against the NHS. In this context, data becomes meaningless and we lose the ability to have honest discussions or consider realistic solutions. What does seem clear from the latest APMS data is that mental distress has increased over at least 2 decades and that increases in psychiatric medication and even increased access to psychological therapies over that same period does not appear to have helped at all. Perhaps this paradox and its implications need to be foregrounded much more in public debate.
How to think about the rise and rise of mental distress
Jul 15, 2025
I’m a physician who has looked at hundreds of studies of vaccine safety, and here’s some of what RFK Jr. gets wrong
Jul 2, 2025
Making Meaning, Creating Care: Mad Zines and Self-Harm
Jun 4, 2025
The cost of breathing
May 28, 2025
Disinformation, vested interest and the campaign against vegan diets
May 21, 2025
How to think about the rise and rise of mental distress
by Susan McPherson Jul 15, 2025New findings about mental distress from the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey
The Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) is a survey of adults in England (people over 16) which has been carried out five times since 1993 with the most recent findings released in June 2025. The survey has used the same questionnaires and screening tools consistently each time so that we can compare changes in the nation’s mental health over time. The “survey” is in fact a full face-to-face or remote interview. Participants are asked about any mental health conditions they have been diagnosed with and any treatments received; it also uses questionnaires and screening tools to assess current levels of mental health and possible diagnoses. The most recent APMS study interviewed 6912 people and carried out follow-up clinical interviews with 880 people.
The key findings from the most recent APMS survey show that poor mental health has continued to increase in England. In particular, the most common problems, referred to as “common mental health conditions” or CMHCs (e.g. depression, anxiety, phobias, panic) are experienced by 20% of adults. More striking are the very marked inequalities revealed. CMHCs are almost twice as common in women compared to men; and are more than twice as common in 16-24 year olds than over 75 year olds. Among 16-24 year olds, the prevalence of CMHCs has risen from 17.5% in 2007 to 25.8% in 2023/4. There are regional differences (North East and East Midlands having the highest prevalence) and socioeconomic differences with the highest prevalence (26.2%) in the most deprived areas.
How did the authors interpret the findings?
The APMS report does provide a set of methodological issues that should be taken into account by those interpreting the data; but it does not draw out any specific policy or clinical implications at all. Press releases and websites linked to the authors state only the key findings. The findings the authors highlight are: the increasing prevalence over time of several mental health conditions; the stark increases and prevalence rates for young people in particular; the very clear socio-economic gradient in the findings; the association between physical and mental health; and an observed increase over time in numbers of people receiving treatment (both medication and psychological treatments).
How did others interpret the findings?
An interesting feature of the report’s reception has been the different emphases in how we should interpret these findings and what we should do about it as a society.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists’ press release noted:
This is an interesting take given the APMS in fact found a large increase in numbers of people being treated for mental health conditions. The APMS does find a “treatment gap” and this gap is also seen in other literature finding a significant number of people experiencing symptoms of CMHCs but not receiving treatment. However, the APMS findings primarily emphasise an increase in treatment receipt. In 2007, the APMS found 10.4% of people with CMHC symptoms receiving psychological treatments and 19.6% receiving medication. In 2023/4, this has risen to 17.9% and 38.4% respectively. Therefore, successive government policy over 20 years of increasing treatment (especially medical treatments) has occurred over the same time period as a significant worsening of mental health across the nation. This does not seem to support the idea that we just need more and more treatment to address the rise and rise in mental distress.
Other responses to the APMS data appear to have focused more on the implications for root causes of mental distress. The Mental Health Foundation media briefing notes:
Similarly the Centre for Mental Health notes:
Whilst both these responses emphasise the societal causes of distress, which are supported by the APMS findings, neither fully acknowledge the timescale and the paradox at the heart of the APMS findings. For example, APMS surveys show the increases in prevalence stretching back to well before the pandemic and current cost of living crisis referred to by the Mental Health Foundation. Likewise, the current political drama over welfare cuts referred to by the Centre for Mental Health is surely but a symptom of a much more fundamental problem in our entire societal approach to mental distress.
Indeed the very different responses from different sectors of society to the APMS report perhaps highlights part of the problem – that mental health is now a political tool, with key data and research findings being used for rhetorical or political purposes, to argue both for one thing and another. To argue for welfare and against it. To argue for more treatment or less treatment. To argue for or against the government; for or against the NHS. In this context, data becomes meaningless and we lose the ability to have honest discussions or consider realistic solutions. What does seem clear from the latest APMS data is that mental distress has increased over at least 2 decades and that increases in psychiatric medication and even increased access to psychological therapies over that same period does not appear to have helped at all. Perhaps this paradox and its implications need to be foregrounded much more in public debate.