Search

Abstract Background Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has varying prevalence rates worldwide, often higher in culturally diverse populations. Cultural differences can affect autism symptom recognition. Language barriers and differing healthcare attitudes may delay diagnosis and intervention. Most autism screening tools were developed in Western, predominantly Caucasian populations, and their appropriateness in culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) contexts remains uncertain. There is a lack of comprehensive data on the accuracy of these tools in identifying autism in culturally and linguistically diverse groups. Consequently, it is unclear whether current screening tools are culturally sensitive and appropriate. Methods A research protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022367308). A comprehensive search of literature published from inception to October 2022 was conducted using the following databases: PubMed, Medline Complete, Scopus, PsychInfo and CINAHL Complete. The articles were screened using pre-determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Data extracted included participant demographics, screening tool psychometric properties (validity, reliability, accuracy) and acceptability. A narrative synthesis approach was used. Results From the initial retrieval of 2310 citations, 51 articles were included for analysis. The studies were conducted in 32 different countries with screening tools in the following languages: Chinese, Spanish, Korean, Turkish, Arabic, Kurdish, Persian, Serbian, Italian, French, Sinhala, Taiwanese, Finnish, Northern Soho, Albanian, German, Japanese, Vietnamese, Farsi, Greek and English. There was no data on acceptability of the screening tools in CALD populations. Validity, reliability, and accuracy ranged from poor to excellent with consistently high performance by screening tools devised within the populations they are intended for. Conclusions The review evaluated autism screening tools in culturally diverse populations, with a focus on validity, reliability, and acceptability. It highlighted variations in the effectiveness of these tools across different cultures, with high performance by tools devised specifically for the intended population, emphasizing the need for culturally sensitive screening tools. Further research is needed to improve culturally specific, reliable autism screening tools for equitable assessment and intervention in diverse communities.

Abstract Background Significant challenges remain in the early identification of child developmental disabilities in the community. Implementing supports and services early in the life course has been shown to promote positive developmental outcomes for children at high likelihood of developmental disabilities, including autism. As part of a cluster randomised controlled trial, this study seeks to examine and compare the perspectives and experiences of Australian general practitioners (GPs) in relation to a digital developmental surveillance program for autism and usual care pathway, in general practice clinics. Methods A qualitative research methodology with semi-structured interviews and thematic inductive analysis underpinned by grounded theory was utilised. All GPs from South Western Sydney (NSW) and Melbourne (Victoria) who participated in the main program (“GP Surveillance for Autism”) were invited to the interview. GPs who provided consent were interviewed either over online or in-person meeting. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using NVivo12 software. Inductive interpretive approach was adopted and data were analysed thematically. Results Twenty-three GPs across the two sites (NSW: n = 11; Victoria: n = 12) agreed to be interviewed; data saturation had reached following this number of participants. Inductive thematic coding and analysis yielded eight major themes and highlighted common enablers such as the role of GPs in early identification and subsequent supports, enhanced communication between clinicians/professionals, relationship-building with patients, and having standardised screening tools. Specific facilitators to the feasibility and acceptability of a digital screening program for the early identification of developmental disabilities, including the early signs of autism, and encouraging research and education for GPs. However, several practical and socioeconomic barriers were identified, in addition to limited knowledge and uptake of child developmental screening tools as well as COVID-19 lockdown impacts. Common and specific recommendations involve supporting GPs in developmental/paediatrics training, streamlined screening process, and funding and resources in the primary healthcare services. Conclusions The study highlighted the need for practice and policy changes, including further training of GPs alongside sufficient time to complete developmental checks and appropriate financial remuneration through a Medicare billing item. Further research is needed on implementation and scale up of a national surveillance program for early identification of developmental disabilities, including autism.