By Dr. Melody Smith,
If you are working towards a career in clinical psychology, it can feel as though the landscape is shifting under your feet. Policy announcements, new technologies and emerging research all shape the context you will eventually practise in. In the past week alone, three stories have raised important questions for aspiring clinical psychologists: a government-commissioned review into rising mental health, autism and ADHD diagnoses, renewed concern about using AI chatbots for emotional support, and a critical look at the quality of research on mental health apps (The Guardian, 2025; Financial Times, 2025; Linardon et al., 2025; Teachers College, Columbia University, 2025).
Together, these developments touch on core clinical psychology questions: how we define and diagnose distress, how we use technology ethically, and how we evaluate the evidence base we rely on.
The government review into rising mental health, autism and ADHD diagnoses
This week, Health Secretary Wes Streeting announced an independent clinical review into the sharp rise in mental health, autism and ADHD diagnoses in England (The Guardian, 2025; Financial Times, 2025). The review will be led by Professor Peter Fonagy, with Professor Sir Simon Wessely as vice-chair, and will examine why benefit claims linked to mental health and neurodevelopmental conditions have increased so markedly, particularly among young adults (Financial Times, 2025; Pulse, 2025).
Streeting has voiced concern about the possible over-pathologising of understandable distress, while also stating that the review should not undermine support for people who genuinely need it (The Guardian, 2025). For aspiring clinical psychologists, this raises several tensions that you will already recognise in your work. On one hand, increased recognition of mental health needs and neurodivergence can be seen as progress, especially for groups who historically struggled to access assessment. On the other, there are legitimate questions about how austerity, inequality, precarious employment and under-resourced services shape what ends up being framed as individual disorder rather than social problem.
This story links closely to competencies around assessment, formulation and governance. In your own applications and interviews, you might reflect on how you balance careful, person-centred assessment with awareness of wider systemic pressures. You could think about experiences where you have held space for distress without rushing to diagnosis, or times when you have advocated for appropriate assessment pathways rather than defaulting to quick labels. Referencing this review briefly in an application or interview could demonstrate your awareness of current policy debates and your ability to situate individual presentations within broader welfare and healthcare systems (e.g. “In light of current reviews into rising ADHD and autism diagnoses in England, I am particularly mindful of…”).
AI chatbots and the limits of digital emotional support
A second story this week focuses on the use of AI chatbots for emotional support. Experts at Teachers College, Columbia University, have cautioned against relying on AI for complex psychological needs, highlighting concerns about safety, accountability, bias and the risk of people turning to chatbots instead of appropriate human help (Teachers College, 2025).
The article emphasises that AI tools can sometimes give inaccurate or unhelpful responses, may not respond safely to risk, and can inadvertently replicate social biases. At the same time, it suggests there is scope for a “healthier AI future” if these tools are designed with clear safeguards, transparency and human oversight.
For aspiring clinical psychologists, this sits right at the intersection of several SCRIPTED FLAG competencies: interventions, governance, research and ethics. You may already have encountered digital tools in your roles, whether that is mood-tracking apps, online CBT programmes or simple chat interfaces. This story invites you to ask critical questions such as: Who is responsible when things go wrong? How are these tools evaluated? What does “informed consent” look like when users may not fully understand how AI works?
In your reflective writing, you might draw on experiences where digital tools have supported engagement or accessibility, and contrast these with times when you have noticed their limitations. Linking your reflections to this debate shows that you are not simply “pro” or “anti” technology, but are able to adopt a nuanced, evidence-informed stance that prioritises safety, equity and person-centred care.
How strong is the evidence for mental health apps?
A new paper by Linardon and colleagues (2025) examined the methodological quality of randomised controlled trials of mental health apps for depression and anxiety. They found that although there has been some improvement over time, many trials still show significant weaknesses, including high risk of bias, limited follow-up periods and inconsistent reporting of outcomes (Linardon et al., 2025).
This matters because mental health apps are often marketed as evidence-based, yet the underlying research may not support the strong claims made in advertising or policy documents. For aspiring clinical psychologists, this paper offers a reminder that “digital” does not automatically mean “innovative and effective”. Instead, you need the same critical evaluation skills you would apply to any other intervention.
You might think about how you would appraise a study of a mental health app using the kinds of frameworks you encounter in ACPsych’s critical appraisal resources: What is the sample? How were participants recruited? Is there an appropriate control condition? Are outcomes clinically meaningful, not just statistically significant? Bringing this level of scrutiny into your applications and interviews can demonstrate your research and evaluation competencies, particularly when you also consider issues of access, digital exclusion and cultural relevance.
Why these stories matter for your development
Taken together, these three stories showcase the complexity of contemporary mental health work. The review into rising diagnoses highlights the entanglement of clinical practice with welfare and economic policy. The AI chatbot debate illustrates how rapidly technology is entering the mental health space, often faster than regulation and evidence can keep up. The paper on mental health apps reminds us that rigorous research and critical appraisal remain central to ethical practice.
For aspiring clinical psychologists, these are not abstract debates. They will shape the services you work in, the assessments you conduct, the interventions you offer and the conversations you have with supervisors, colleagues and service users. Engaging thoughtfully with these developments aligns closely with the SCRIPTED FLAG competencies, especially around governance, research, communication, diversity and inclusion, and personal and professional development.
Final thoughts
You do not need to be an expert on every policy paper or journal article. However, cultivating a steady habit of staying curious, reading widely and reflecting critically on what you find will serve you well throughout your career. When you notice a headline about mental health or the DClinPsy, you might pause and ask: What assumptions are being made here? Whose voices are amplified or missing? How does this connect to the competencies I am developing?
Approaching news stories in this way strengthens your ability to integrate evidence, ethics and context – exactly the blend that sits at the heart of clinical psychology. It also reminds you that you are part of a wider community of practitioners, researchers and service users who are all trying to make sense of a complex, changing world. You are allowed to feel unsettled by these debates, and you are also allowed to feel hopeful that your developing skills will contribute to more thoughtful, compassionate care.
References
Financial Times. (2025, December 4). UK government orders review into rising diagnoses of mental health conditions.
Linardon, J., et al. (2025). Methodological quality in randomised clinical trials of mental health apps for depression and anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders.
Pulse. (2025, December 4). Government launches review into rising ADHD, autism and mental health diagnoses.
Teachers College, Columbia University. (2025, December 3). Experts caution against using AI chatbots for emotional support.
The Guardian. (2025, December 3). Wes Streeting orders review of mental health diagnoses as benefit claims soar.
