According to a paper published in JAMA Psychiatry, the types of people who get diagnosed with ADHD or autism have changed in the past decade or so.

Compared to people diagnosed with these forms of neurodivergence a decade or more ago, a Danish study found that children and adolescents with ADHD or autism now have more characteristics in common with the general population.

Until 2012, young people with either diagnosis tended to have been born at lower birth weights, while their parents were more likely than those of undiagnosed kids and teens to have lower education rates and less household income.

But those links seem to have become “weaker” over the years, with more recently-diagnosed young people increasingly presenting similarly to their neurotypical peers.

Here, we asked Professor Laura Crane, a Chair in Autism Studies at the University of Birmingham and Director of the Autism Centre for Education and Research (ACER), to weigh in on these findings.

Let’s start with what researchers don’t think is happening here.

The study authors stressed that these results “do not show that these conditions are being overdiagnosed or that they have become less severe”, though they could help explain why ADHD and autism diagnoses have risen so sharply.

Instead, the study may “indicate that the population receiving these diagnoses has changed over time, and this needs to be taken into account when interpreting current trends”.

One explanation, Prof Crane said, is that we’re simply getting better at spotting autism and ADHD in cases that would have previously been missed.

“Historically, diagnoses were often reserved for people whose differences and support needs were quite specific and quite overt,” she told us.

“Greater awareness of autism – among the general public as well as healthcare professionals – means that many individuals who may previously have gone unrecognised (e.g., autistic women and girls, who have been shown to internalise or mask their autistic characteristics) are now being identified”.

That could mean more people, including those whose “day-to-day experiences appear more similar (at least on the surface) to those of their non-diagnosed peers”, are no longer going under the radar.

The authors of the paper write that differences in who gets diagnosed do not mean the neurodivergent experiences they live with are “less impairing on the individual level”.

Interestingly, Professor Crane says, “researchers are recognising that the difficulties neurodivergent people face arise not simply from characteristics within the individual, but from the interaction between those characteristics and the environment the person is in”.

Therefore, the “severity” of a person’s ADHD or autism might not rely entirely on static conditions within the person diagnosed. The professor pointed to research that argues the world around that person can make their neurodiversity more or less challenging.

For instance, the UCL paper suggests that workplaces and schools are becoming more results-driven and demanding.

“As such, people with less overt autistic characteristics may still experience significant difficulties – across a range of areas of their life – because of the mismatch between their characteristics and what their environment expects of them,” Prof Crane suggested.

“Overall then, I think these findings likely reflect a combination of factors, including broader recognition of autism and ADHD and changes in who receives a diagnosis,” she ended.

“But they don’t necessarily mean that these diagnoses have become less significant or impairing. Often due to the mismatch between the person and the environment, many neurodivergent people continue to face substantial barriers across education, employment, healthcare and everyday life.”

Children chat about a lot of pretty odd stuff (remember Ballerina Cappuccina?) – however if you’ve heard them mention ‘gooning’ in conversation with their mates, or during gaming, it’s certainly worth pulling them up on it.

While you might consider ‘gooning’ as messing around or even goofing about (that’s what first came to my mind), per Mashable, it actually means “masturbating for a prolonged period of time, usually hours, without ever climaxing”.

In online spaces, it can also refer to zoning out as a result of intense sexual arousal, which Gabb (a company providing child-safe phones and tech) notes is “most often in the context of pornography”.

The issue is, if tweens and teens are using this terminology, chances are they are coming across pornography or inappropriate content online.

It’s not uncommon – over one-quarter (27%) of kids have come across pornography by age 11, according to a survey by the Children’s Commissioner.

While children shouldn’t be easily coming across porn due to stricter regulation as part of the Online Safety Act, they may still find ways to access it.

If your tween or teen is talking about gooning, even if it’s just joking with friends, it’s definitely worth asking them about it.

If they are getting involved in this activity, Fiona Yassin, a family psychotherapist, told HuffPost UK: “There’s a real neurodevelopmental risk here. During adolescence, the brain is still under construction – very much a work in progress – and when it’s repeatedly flooded with high-intensity sexual content, it drives spikes in dopamine that can create a pathway towards compulsive cycles.

“Over time, young people may need more and more intensity to achieve the same effect, which mirrors the mechanisms we see in other forms of addiction. That’s particularly concerning in a developing brain.”

Yassin, who is the founder and clinical director of The Wave Clinic, also warned that it can impact social development (zoning out in front of a screen might increase isolation, anxiety and low mood) and attachment, particularly as far as sexual relationships are concerned.

“This can disrupt the development of healthy attachment, increasing impulsivity, risk-taking, and a disregard for personal and relational safety,” she explained.

Teens who are exposed to this kind of content can also begin to develop unrealistic expectations of themselves and others, particularly as far as sex and relationships are concerned.

“It can encourage objectification, a sense of disposability in relationships, and a reduced capacity for genuine intimacy – building, sustaining, and nurturing connection,” said Yassin.

Ultimately, she warned, “it can shift how young people see others, which can lead to the oversexualisation of what would otherwise be non-sexual interactions”.

“That has wide-reaching implications for how they relate, connect, and develop into adulthood.”

Some children might use the word without fully understanding where it comes from and the potential impact on others. So, the key here is to be curious about where they’ve heard the term and what they think it means – which can help steer your conversations going forward.

“Rather than reacting with frustration or alarm, the most effective starting point for parents is to stay calm and curious,” said Yassin.

“Parents may ask: ‘What does this word mean to you?’ or ‘What do you think someone else might hear or feel when that word is used?’. Like many aspects of child and adolescent mental health, this situation offers a valuable teaching and learning opportunity.”

If they do know the full meaning, the therapist urges parents to seize the opportunity for age-appropriate honesty. “Teens, in particular, are more likely to engage when they feel respected, rather than lectured,” she added.

“Parents can gently widen the conversation to the bigger picture, which might include the consequences of the word, how pornography can shape expectations, impact mental health, and, in some cases, lead to more compulsive patterns of behaviour.”

Action for Children has a few helpful pointers for talking to kids about porn, but ultimately it advises parents to reassure kids it’s OK to feel curious about sex, while also explaining that “porn is unrealistic” and it “can be harmful for them to watch it”.

The prime minister Andy Burnham has confirmed that, as of April 2027, women and their partners will be entitled to two weeks off after miscarriage.

In an Instagram post shared on Tuesday (22 September), Burnham pointed out that one in five women in the UK are estimated to experience a miscarriage in their lifetime, but there is no legal right to bereavement leave before 24 weeks.

“I don’t think that’s right,” said the Labour leader. “Losing a pregnancy can be devastating. You and your partner shouldn’t have to worry about going straight back to work. So we’re changing the law.”

The leave applies to any pregnancy loss, meaning those who experience miscarriage, terminations and unsuccessful IVF embryo transfers will be able to take it.

It’s worth noting it’ll be unpaid, however Burnham suggested those two weeks offer “the time and space” to grieve.

In response to the announcement, podcaster and author Elizabeth Day, who has been open about her own experience of recurrent miscarriage and unsuccessful fertility treatment, said: “Thank you, Prime Minister. This means so much to all who have experienced the specific loss of miscarriage.”

Retired RAF pilot Mandy Hickson added: “This is so important. I was at work the next day [after a loss], whilst trying to control my emotion for a baby that we had been trying for over a year to conceive.

“The loss was unbearable, but I was working in the military at the time – there was no way that I could show any form of weakness, meanwhile all I wanted to do was sob every day.

“This is so important to recognise this in law. Well done.”

Comedian Rachel Parris highlighted that while having the time to grieve is important, “for many, those two weeks are absolutely necessary for the body to begin its recovery” as well.

Another commenter said: “Crying in American. We don’t even get leave for the babies that make it through alive and well. The UK [is] showing us they are way better.”

The move was also praised by charities supporting families through loss.

Pregnancy and baby charity Tommys responded: “Thank you Andy Burnham for your empathy for families affected by the heartbreak of baby loss. We’re here for anyone who loses a baby, no matter when or how it happened.”

The baby loss charity Sands added: “We welcome today’s recognition from the Government that pregnancy loss is a bereavement and look forward to continuing on this journey to ensure that leave for all losses is paid.

“While changes to legislation are welcome, employers do not need to wait for legal requirements to improve support for staff affected by pregnancy loss or the death of a baby. Sands is here to support employers to create more compassionate workplaces.”

One commenter remarked that because the leave is unpaid, “it’s a good start but doesn’t go far enough”.

Another added that “people can’t afford unpaid leave”, so they’d “be better off calling in sick and getting SSP [statutory sick pay]”.

As part of the new changes, ministers will also introduce a new right to two weeks of unpaid bereavement leave from April 2027, for employees who lose a spouse or partner, parent, adult child or sibling. This will include step, half, adoptive, kinship care and foster relationships who currently have no legal right to bereavement leave.

Minister for the Future of Work, Kate Dearden, said: “No one should have to fight for time to grieve. These changes back people going through some of the hardest moments of life, whoever they are and wherever they work.

“I want to thank the campaigners, whose courage and testimonies, have made this change happen.”

The government is currently undertaking a wider, comprehensive review of the parental leave and pay system, including on areas such as Hugh’s Law, which is campaigning to introduce statutory paid leave and employment protections for parents of seriously ill children.

• Sands works to support anyone affected by the death of a baby.
• Tommy’s fund research into miscarriage, stillbirth and premature birth, and provide pregnancy health information to parents.
• Saying Goodbye offers support for anyone who has suffered the loss of a baby during pregnancy, at birth or in infancy.

Greta Thunberg has added her voice to the ongoing controversy surrounding the singer Ed Sheeran, following his decision to drop Macklemore as his tour’s opening act.

In an Instagram video shared on Monday morning, the Swedish activist voiced her belief that the Lego House star “should be held accountable” after bowing to pressure to remove Macklemore as his tour’s opening act, in light of comments the rapper had made on stage in support of Palestine amid the conflict in the Middle East.

“Yes, Ed Sheeran should be held accountable for his lack of spine,” Greta told her followers. “But remember that we have to continuously apply the same pressure on all those complicit in all genocides.

“The bigger your platform and your access to resources, the bigger your responsibility. But also, [we should apply this to] ourselves and the institutions that we are part of, where we have to push for boycotts, sanctions and divestments. If we, ourselves, are not stepping out of our comfort zones, we are not doing enough.”

“Remember, silence is complicity, and you cannot be neutral in a genocide,” she concluded.

In her post’s caption, Greta insisted: “This is not about Ed Sheeran, it is about the people dying on the ground, holding those complicit accountable and applying that pressure on everyone responsible.”

Ed previously denied being “complicit” in a statement posted after Macklemore alleged that the singer had removed him from his tour as his presence would go against the British performer’s “I don’t take sides” belief system.

Macklemore had also claimed Ed had told him that stadium owners had said both artists wouldn’t be allowed to perform in their stadiums if the US star stayed on.

“I have my personal views on this devastating conflict,” Ed then wrote on Instagram. “Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn’t mean I don’t have them, and it doesn’t mean I don’t care. Nor does it mean I don’t support causes in my own, personal way.”

Following this statement, the rest of Ed’s opening acts pulled out of the tour, as did his backing band, with the Grammy winner resuming the US leg of his world jaunt over the weekend.

Piers Morgan has claimed he intends to take legal action against Earl Charles Spencer over his new book about his late sister, Princess Diana.

Speaking on his YouTube channel Piers Morgan Uncensored on Monday, the former Good Morning Britain host revealed that he had been name-checked numerous times in Earl Spencer’s memoir, Swan Song.

He told his viewers that the book “contains fabricated inaccuracies which will strike to the heart of [Earl Spencer’s] credibility”.

“Spencer recounts how he personally called round the tabloid newspaper editors to uninvite them from Princess Diana’s funeral after they had all been invited,” Piers said. “I remember this well because I was one of them.

“He says in the book, ‘they realised they were unable to be rude to the brother of the much-mourned princess […] the only one who sounded surly, as opposed to merely confused or embarrassed, was Piers Morgan of The Mirror, who snarled with annoyance before he hung up’.

“Well, Spencer then explained why I may have been surly with him. [Spencer wrote:] ‘I assumed Morgan must be feeling particular guilt because, for years earlier, he and his Sunday Mirror counterpart had published photographs taken with hidden cameras by a gym owner. They were of Diana working out in a leotard. This was such an intolerable invasion of her privacy that Diana instructed lawyers to sue the Mirror Group and to block further use of these images’.

“‘Meanwhile’, he says, ‘a Dutch newspaper splashed one of the pictures on its front page, and an American tabloid bought a selection of them with which to titivate its readers. The gym owner eventually made £300,000 from his salacious, stolen images’.

“Well, Spencer continues, ’for a while it looked as though the Mirror Group would be brazen enough to allow the case to go to court, calculating that whatever their newspapers lost financially at trial would be more than recouped through global publicity.

“Despite significant public outrage at the pictures, and loss of revenue when some major companies withdrew their advertising from the Mirror Group, Morgan’s triumphant spokesman boasted that sales of his paper and of the Sunday Mirror had each risen by more than a hundred thousand copies since splashing the intrusive shots.

“But after that, public curiosity turned into general revulsion, and both papers’ circulation dropped significantly. This commercial setback persuaded the Mirror Group to fold. It agreed to pay Diana’s legal costs, of around £1 million, and it was obliged to further acknowledge its guilt by making donations of £200,000 to her chosen charities.”

Piers continued: “It then says, ’in the immediate aftermath of Diana’s death, Morgan was one of four tabloid editors named, shamed and photographed in an article looking at who might be held responsible for the paparazzi’s role […] it must have been an extraordinary sensation for this powerful quartet [who] were used to dishing out such treatment, without ever receiving it in return.”

“Well, this is all pretty extraordinary stuff, isn’t it?” he remarked. “And very damning, particularly about me.

“I come across in the most despicable manner imaginable. And there’s just one problem – it’s all bullshit, and very, very easy bullshit for me to prove it.”

He pointed out: “The photographs that he says that I published were published by The Sunday Mirror on 7 November 1993. I joined the Daily Mirror in October 1995. In fact, at the time of the gym pictures, I was doing a showbiz column for The Mirror’s arch rival, The Sun. About as far removed from responsibility for The Mirror’s scoop as I could possibly have been.”

“My question, though, is if Earl Spencer can be so incredibly defamatorily wrong about such basic facts involving me, why should we believe anything else that he puts in this book?” Piers then stated.

He added: “The book is out tomorrow, I expect that there’ll be many more examples of brazen falsity after what I’ve uncovered purely [in an] entry about myself.

“In the meantime, Earl Spencer, you’ll be hearing, and your publishers [will be hearing], from my lawyers, because I would like the complete lie that you’ve published about me and those photographed to be removed from your book, and I would like a donation to be made to the King’s Trust for the damage that you’ve caused with your lie. After all, to quote somebody, you can’t dish it out without getting it in return, right?”

HuffPost UK has contacted reps for Earl Charles Spencer and the publisher Penguin Michael Joseph for comment.

Ahead of Swan Song’s publication, excerpts were serialised in the Daily Mail, with one in particular – in which Earl Spencer alleged that King Charles told him in the wake of Diana’s death that “we’ll forget her soon enough” – prompting a rare response from the Palace.

“While we do not comment on books as a matter of principle, His Majesty is mindful that the pain of fraternal grief can cloud reason, affect judgment and colour memory in ways others do not recognise, even many years after such a loss,” a spokesperson said.

“I can tell you here and now, those are exactly the words he said,” Earl Spencer subsequently told the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.

“Well, is he furious? Is he furious, or is he embarrassed?” he responded, adding: “They’ve sort of smudged that one, haven’t they? They’ve said that recollections may vary.”

Doubling down in a subsequent interview with ABC’s Maggie Rulli, Earl Spencer quipped that it’s “not every day you’re gaslit by a king”.

“I was really upset with that because I thought it was very, not only condescending, but not straight,” he noted.

Kids have been back to school for a few weeks now – and if you’ve noticed your child has regressed somewhat in this time, you certainly aren’t alone.

There might be more bed-wetting or daytime accidents than normal. Perhaps they’re reverting to baby talk, not sleeping well or being extra clingy.

September is the “peak season” for kids to regress, according to experts at childcare provider Koru Kids.

It makes sense that this is the case. Lots of change happens in September – some children are starting new schools, joining new year groups or going into new nurseries.

There’s a big shift in routine (compared to over the summer when lie-ins and lazy days were the norm), not to mention new teachers and classmates to get to know.

On top of that, after a summer spent around family, kids suddenly face long periods of time separated from their loved ones.

It’s stressful – and for some kids, this means they revert back to younger ways. It’s almost like a built-in safety net.

According to Koru’s experts, regression can look like: clinginess or separation anxiety; thumb sucking and/or nail biting; toileting accidents; baby talk and needing help with things they could previously do on their own.

The good news is your child isn’t going backwards or getting stuck in bad habits, Koru notes that most kids’ behaviour will settle when they feel secure again.

And again, it’s worth highlighting, regression is super common.

But there are certain things parents can be doing to help ease their child’s stress levels during this time.

This includes: offering connection when you do see them (cuddles and playtime always helps), keeping routines steady and predictable, helping them to name what they’re going through (ie. “there have been lots of changes this week, it’s OK to need a bit more help!”), and avoiding shaming or mocking them.

The childcare experts note that regression is a child’s way of saying: “Life feels big right now – I need to feel little until I’m ready again.”

And it’s our job to help them through this period.

If your child’s regression lasts for more than three weeks though, don’t be afraid to speak to a healthcare provider, who can offer more support.

Sometimes it can help to offer more opportunities for downtime and calming rituals after school or nursery.

This is also helpful for those experiencing after-school restraint collapse, a very common phenomenon parents notice when their child is hungry and/or tired, and returns home from school or nursery. Kids will be super emotional and there may be multiple meltdowns.

Susie Pinchin, BACP member and therapeutic counsellor, previously told HuffPost UK these issues likely occur as a result of a child “having spent seven hours or more having to control or suppress or mask their natural urges and desires in order to conform to the expectations of a school day”.

Your child’s brain is working at full capacity for hours on end, expending “a great deal of emotional, cognitive, and social energy to scan, learn, manage expectations, follow rules, and navigate relationships”, Dr Patapia Tzotzoli, clinical psychologist and founder of My Triage Network, added.

So it’s no wonder then that they return home depleted. Or that they might crave more support and connection.

Dr Tzotzoli recommended a few options you could offer that might help:

• A quiet space to rest or engage in a calm activity alone
• Time to play outdoors – running, biking, or other active play
• A nutritious snack to refuel
• A gentle discussion with questions like, “What made you laugh today?”.