Last week, I had the opportunity to attend a Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) event on Neuro-Inclusion in the Workplace, hosted by Edinburgh University Business School. The event featured four excellent presentations, each offering valuable insights into this critical topic. I extend my gratitude to the presenters and organisers for delivering such an engaging and thought-provoking evening.
As expected, the discussions sparked numerous reflections on the various aspects of neuro-inclusion, including the specific challenges individuals may face in the workplace, practical approaches to support them, and the theoretical models that organisations could adopt to foster a more inclusive environment.
One particularly striking statistic stood out in two of the presentations: 15-20% of the global population is neurodiverse. My immediate reaction was one of surprise—this is a significant figure. However, it also prompted an important question: does this percentage represent individuals with a formal diagnosis, or is it an estimated prevalence?
At the end of the event, I posed this question to one of the speakers, who indicated that his understanding was that the statistic referred to formally diagnosed individuals. However, I remain somewhat sceptical.
To be clear, I have no issue with the number itself, but I do believe that context matters. My inclination is that this figure, which is frequently cited in academic literature and business reports, represents an estimated prevalence, encompassing both diagnosed and undiagnosed individuals.
If this statistic were based solely on formally diagnosed cases, the true prevalence would likely be even higher. In my experience as a mental health clinician, I have not observed such an extensive number of diagnosed cases in practice. Furthermore, significant barriers exist in accessing a diagnostic pathway, which means many neurodivergent individuals remain undiagnosed. These barriers include:
Limited access to diagnostic services, particularly in low-income countries or for adults.
Gender biases in diagnosis, as conditions like ADHD and autism are often underdiagnosed in women.
Social stigma, which discourages individuals from seeking assessments.
Variations in diagnostic criteria across different countries and healthcare systems.
Indeed, when it comes to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), I am aware of at least one Scottish health authority that has ceased offering ASD assessments for adults, and it is likely that others may follow suit.
Ultimately, the 15-20% figure serves as an important reference point, but it is essential to consider the broader context in which it is used. Understanding the distinction between diagnosed cases and estimated prevalence is crucial in shaping effective workplace policies, ensuring that neurodiverse individuals receive the support they need.
As conversations around neuro-inclusion continue, it is vital to approach such statistics with critical thinking and an awareness of the systemic barriers that impact diagnosis rates. Doing so will lead to more informed discussions and, ultimately, more inclusive workplaces.
Yorumlar