Search

Understanding the types of intervention practices familiar to transdisciplinary autism spectrum disorder providers may be critical to characterize and optimize "usual care" for common clinical concerns (e.g. internalizing, externalizing, and social challenges) among school- and transition-age autistic youth. We assessed if there is an underlying factor structure to expert providers' familiarity with such practices, and if characteristics of experts (discipline, years' experience, and school setting) and/or their clients (age and intellectual disability) predicted these factors. Fifty-three expert providers rated their familiarity with 55 practices via an online Delphi poll. Exploratory structural equation modeling identified latent factors of familiarity, which were regressed onto provider and client variables to identify predictors. Four factors emerged: two approaches (cognitive and behavioral) and two strategies (engagement and accessibility). Cognitive approaches were associated with practicing outside school settings and treating clients without intellectual disability, behavioral approaches with practicing in schools and the disciplines of clinical psychology and behavior analysis, engagement strategies with practicing outside school settings, and accessibility strategies with more years in practice. Findings suggest expert transdisciplinary autism spectrum disorder providers are familiar with many of the same approaches and that differences in knowledge are predicted by their discipline, treatment setting, experience, and work with youth with intellectual disabilities. School-age children, adolescents, and young adults with autism spectrum disorder encounter many different types of providers in their pursuit of treatment for anxiety, behavior problems, and social difficulties. These providers may all be familiar with different types of intervention practices. However, research has not yet investigated patterns in expert providers' familiarity with different practices nor how these patterns are related to the characteristics of providers (years in practice, academic discipline, setting) and the youth (age and intellectual disability) they typically support. A panel of 53 expert transdisciplinary providers rated their familiarity with 55 intervention practices (derived from research and expert nominations) via an online Delphi poll. Advanced statistical methods were used to identify types of intervention practices with which providers were familiar, which included two approaches (cognitive and behavioral) and two strategies (engagement and accessibility). Providers who practiced outside a school setting or treated clients without intellectual disability were more familiar with cognitive approaches. Clinical psychologists, behavior analysts, and school-based providers were more familiar with behavioral approaches. Providers practicing outside school settings were also more familiar with engagement strategies, and providers with more years in practice were more familiar with accessibility strategies. These results may help families and researchers to better anticipate how services may vary depending on the types of autism spectrum disorder providers seen and work to reduce disparities in care that may result. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using a cross-sectional survey of 673 multidisciplinary autism spectrum disorder providers recruited from five different sites in the United States, we examined the frequency with which community-based providers inquire about, screen, and treat trauma-related symptoms in their patients/students and assessed their perceptions regarding the need for and barriers to providing these services. Univariate and bivariate frequencies of self-reported trauma service provision, training needs, and barriers were estimated. Multivariable logistic regressions identified provider and patient-related factors associated with trauma-related symptoms screening and treatment. Over 50% of providers reported some screening and treatment of trauma-related symptoms in youth with autism spectrum disorder. Over 70% informally inquired about trauma-related symptoms; only 10% universally screened. Screening and treatment varied by provider discipline, setting, amount of interaction, and years of experience with autism spectrum disorder, as well as by patient/student sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Most providers agreed that trauma screening is a needed service impeded by inadequate provider training in trauma identification and treatment. The findings indicate that community providers in the United States of varied disciplines are assessing and treating trauma-related symptoms in youth with autism spectrum disorder, and that evidence-based approaches are needed to inform and maximize these efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]