What is happening in the hearts of young people? New diagnoses increase by 60% among those aged 14 to 20: Experts say they "don't know the reason" for the changes occurring now.

What is happening in the hearts of young people? New diagnoses increase by 60% among those aged 14 to 20: Experts say they "don't know the reason" for the changes occurring now.

1. The Heavier Sign Following "Mental Distress in Young People"

Topics of anxiety and depression have become "common news" in recent years. However, what is drawing attention this time is a different axis from mood decline—a significant fluctuation in the perception of reality known as "psychotic disorders."


The British newspaper The Independent reported on February 2, 2026, a heavy fact: "The diagnosis of psychotic disorders seems to be increasing among younger generations, and they appear to be getting younger. However, even experts do not yet understand 'why.'" The stage is set in Canada, specifically in Ontario. The fact that this is a "population-scale" study using medical data, rather than individual anecdotes, has raised the temperature of the topic.


2. Numbers Shown by the Study: "60% Increase" Among Ages 14-20

The study is a retrospective cohort study tracking approximately 12.23 million people (12,231,314) born in Ontario between 1960 and 2009, based on new diagnoses from 1992 to 2023. During this period, 152,587 people (about 0.9%) were diagnosed with psychotic disorders.


What is impactful here is the age-specific change. The annual incidence rate of new diagnoses among those aged 14-20 increased by about 60% from 1997 to 2023, rising from 62.5 per 100,000 to 99.7 per 100,000. On the other hand, results for ages 21-50 showed "stagnation or decline."
In other words, rather than "increasing uniformly across society," there is a possibility that the increase is skewed towards the younger generation.


3. The Core of Generational Differences: Rising Among "Those Born in the 2000s"

Furthermore, the study used an age-period-cohort (APC) model to separate the effects of age and period from generational differences by birth year (cohort). As a result, it was suggested that newer birth cohorts have more diagnoses, and the age of diagnosis tends to decrease.


There are some symbolic numbers. For example, compared to those born between 1975-1979, the incidence rate ratio for schizophrenia in those born between 2000-2004 is estimated to be about 1.70 (70% higher). Additionally, the increase in "psychosis not otherwise specified" is even larger, with an incidence rate ratio of about 2.89 between cohorts.


The important point here is that the increase is not just in "typical schizophrenia." There is a possibility that psychotic disorders in a broader sense, including areas where diagnosis is difficult to confirm or is under observation, are noticeably increasing.


4. "Increased" or "Now Being Found"?

There is always a counterargument in this kind of topic: "There were just as many in the past. It's just that it's easier to seek medical attention and get diagnosed now."


Indeed, if early intervention for young people (early psychosis support), school and community consultation pathways, and reduced stigma progress, the number of diagnoses could increase. The researchers also do not deny the possibility that "improved access and early diagnosis are influencing the numbers." Moreover, administrative data studies have limitations, such as difficulty capturing people who do not use medical facilities and changes in the use of diagnostic codes over time.


What makes this study troublesome is that it suggests a "birth cohort effect" that cannot be fully explained by changes in age and period. In other words, there remains a possibility that "changes in the environment surrounding today's young generation" are somehow affecting the risk.


5. Experts Cite Multiple "Candidates"

The perspective of the co-authors (including Dr. Daniel Myran) introduced in the report is consistent: "It's unlikely to be a single cause." The factors cited as candidates include the following:

  • Substance use: Cannabis, stimulants, hallucinogens, synthetic drugs, etc. Especially use during adolescence may be related to onset or exacerbation.

  • Socioeconomic stress and stress from migration: Cost of living, future anxiety, social isolation, experiences of discrimination, etc.

  • Parental aging: Often discussed as a generational factor related to birth year.

  • Adverse childhood experiences: Abuse, neglect, family discord, poverty, etc.


What is important here is that they are not definitively stating, "This is the cause." Rather than a causation study, the research is closer to presenting the phenomenon that "there may be generational differences." This is why society begins an answerless "search for causes."

6. Reactions on Social Media: The Search for Causes Tied to "Life Experience"

This news sparked a fairly clear division in discussions on social media. To convey the atmosphere, representative reactions are organized as follows:


A. The "High Potency Cannabis" Theory is Strong (But There Are Many Counterarguments)
In the science community on Reddit, voices suggesting "cannabis with increased THC concentration might be influencing this" are prominent. Meanwhile, there are also rebuttals like "The increase in usage rates doesn't match the scale of diagnosis increase" and "Correlation does not imply causation."
This exchange is also a "classic pattern" in discussions about substance use.


B. The "Isolation, Sleep, Overstimulation Post-COVID" Theory
Many people cite environmental factors such as isolation during the pandemic, disrupted life rhythms, chronic sleep deprivation, and overstimulation from social media and videos. This aligns with the image that "the risk of onset increases when stress overlaps with vulnerability, rather than a single factor."


C. The "Changes in Medical Access and Diagnosis" Theory
There is also a strong view that "In the past, people were just considered 'eccentric' and not connected to medical care," and "Schools and families have become more capable of noticing abnormalities." This is also hard to deny. As early support expands, the proportion of those "picked up" at mild stages or when classification is ambiguous increases.


D. The "Stress from Social Structure" Theory
Posts pointing out the "sense of being trapped" among the younger generation due to housing costs, tuition fees, job instability, and poor future prospects, and suggesting that the increase in psychotic disorders might be an extension of this, are also present.
On LinkedIn, there is a relatively high impression of professional posts summarizing the key points of the news and comments focusing on structural factors such as "loneliness" and "weak social support."


Discussions on social media are a mix of good and bad, but what is common is the intuitive question of "What has changed in the environment of the younger generation?"


7. What is Needed Now is Neither Fear Nor Optimism, but the "Ability to Distinguish"

This topic is accompanied by two extremes.

  • Overreaction: The fear of "young people breaking down" strengthens stigma against those affected and narrows the path to support.

  • Underestimation: Dismissing it as "just an increase in diagnoses" delays prevention and intervention if the actual risk is rising.


This is why we want to distinguish between them.
(1) The part that has become "easier to find" due to improved medical access
(2) The part where the "risk has truly increased" due to generational-specific environmental changes
Determining the ratio of these two mixed parts will be the role of the next research.


And there are things that society can do right now. Sleep, substance use, isolation, consultation pathways, support systems in schools and communities—if the cause is not singular, the intervention does not need to be singular either. At the very least, a system that "notices early and connects early" is unlikely to be a loss, regardless of which hypothesis is correct.


Source URL

Related Articles