Addiction treatment in England: reading the 2024–25 data

Who was recorded in treatment?

OHID’s 2024–25 report records 329,646 adults in contact with drug and alcohol treatment in England. Its mutually exclusive reporting groups were opiate (138,255), non-opiate only (43,678), non-opiate plus alcohol (47,758), and alcohol only (99,955).

Men accounted for 68.2% and women 31.8% of the recorded total. Twenty-nine per cent were aged 50 or older. The report concerns adults aged 18 and over in England, not the whole UK. Individuals can report several problem substances, so substance mentions elsewhere in the report should not be added as if each represented a different person.

The denominator changes the question

There is a meaningful difference between people in treatment during a year, people starting a treatment journey, and people leaving during that year. Using the wrong denominator can turn a service-flow statistic into an apparent success rate.

Consider a hypothetical service with 100 starters. If only 40 have a recorded follow-up, a positive outcome for 30 is 75% of respondents but 30% of starters with a documented positive outcome. Neither calculation tells us what happened to the remaining 60. This example is illustrative, not a result from OHID.

Reading age and sex without assumptions

Age and sex breakdowns help identify who is represented in recorded care. They do not explain why a person entered or did not enter treatment. Differences could involve underlying need, referral patterns, eligibility, availability or willingness to disclose. A service dataset alone cannot distinguish these explanations.

Questions about gender identity, ethnicity, disability, housing and caring responsibilities also require the relevant variables and definitions. Do not attach conclusions to groups that the published table does not identify.

From national figures to practical access

The 2026 review of treatment barriers among women illustrates why access deserves separate investigation: practical and social conditions can affect whether care is reachable. Its evidence is not an explanation for a particular English administrative percentage.

• Can people self-refer, and what happens after the initial request?
• How are mental-health concerns and other substances assessed?
• Are appointments accessible around work, disability and caring responsibilities?
• How is continuity arranged when someone moves or leaves residential care?

Our interpretation is that service counts should inform better access questions before they are used as a league table. Read treatment options for a practical comparison of settings, or the outcomes explainer before comparing provider claims.