Search

Defining the central components of an intervention is critical for balancing fidelity with flexible implementation in both research settings and community practice. Implementation scientists distinguish an intervention's essential components (thought to cause clinical change) and adaptable periphery (recommended, but not necessary). While implementing core components with fidelity may be essential for effectiveness, requiring fidelity to the adaptable periphery may stifle innovation critical for personalizing care and achieving successful community implementation. No systematic method exists for defining essential components a priori. We present the CORE (COmponents & Rationales for Effectiveness) Fidelity Method--a novel method for defining key components of evidence-based interventions--and apply it to a case example of reciprocal imitation teaching, a parent-implemented social communication intervention. The CORE Fidelity Method involves three steps: (1) gathering information from published and unpublished materials; (2) synthesizing information, including empirical and hypothesized causal explanations of component effectiveness; and (3) drafting a CORE model and ensuring its ongoing use in implementation efforts. Benefits of this method include: (1) ensuring alignment between intervention and fidelity materials; (2) clarifying the scope of the adaptable periphery to optimize implementation; and (3) hypothesizing--and later, empirically validating--the intervention's active ingredients and their associated mechanisms of change.

This study examined emergency department (ED) utilization by adolescents and young adults, 12-30 years of age (AYA) with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using the 2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project/National Emergency Department Sample (HCUP/NEDS). We investigated the principal reason for an ED visit, presence of an ambulatory care sensitive condition (ACSC), and likelihood of hospital admission following ED encounter in ASD and Non-ASD cohorts. The ASD cohort had a higher proportion of ED visits for ACSC diagnoses as compared to the Non-ASD cohort. In addition, the likelihood of admission following an ED visit in the ASD cohort was 3.7 times greater than in the Non-ASD cohort.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) report on screening for Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) highlighted the need for research that examines the harms potentially associated with screening so as to assess the overall net benefit of universal screening. In response, this study engages qualitative, semi-structured interviews to generate a taxonomy outlining potential harms reported by parents and providers (pediatricians and Early Intervention providers) with experience in screening young children for ASD. Potential harms emerged including: physical, psychological, social, logistical/financial, opportunity cost, attrition, and exacerbation of non-targeted disparities. Respondents reported harms being experienced by the toddlers, parents, and providers. The harms reported highlight opportunities for providers to offer resources that mitigate the potential for these unintended consequences.

Significant disparities exist between Hispanic and non-Hispanic families in time-to-diagnosis among children identified as at risk of autism spectrum disorder; yet, little is known about parent experiences throughout the diagnostic process that may contribute to or help explain these disparities. The current study examined longitudinal trajectories of parenting stress, coping, and perceived family impact during the autism spectrum disorder diagnostic process among an ethnically and racially diverse low-income, urban sample, allowing for comparisons between Hispanic and non-Hispanic families. Hispanic families reported lower levels of parenting stress (X[superscript 2] = 5.35(1), p = 0.021), avoidant (X[superscript 2] = 9.66(1), p = 0.002) and approach (X[superscript 2] = 8.61(1), p = 0.003) coping, and negative family impact (X[superscript 2] = 5.39(1), p = 0.020) across time (main effects) compared with non-Hispanic families. Furthermore, there were differences in the change in use (Time Period x Ethnicity interaction effects) of both avoidant (X[superscript 2] = 10.80(3), p = 0.013) and approach (X[superscript 2] = 11.57(3), p = 0.009) coping, as well as negative family impact (X[superscript 2] = 9.81(3), p = 0.020), between Hispanic and non-Hispanic parents over time. These differences begin to shed light on the unique experiences of Hispanic parents. Because of the strengths that Hispanic families demonstrate, interventions that leverage those strengths and focus on education, empowerment, and resilience might be particularly beneficial for Hispanic families and may also better inform work to increase resilience in non-Hispanic families.

In 2016, the US Preventive Services Task Force concluded that there was "insufficient" ("I" statement) evidence to support universal primary care screening for autism spectrum disorder. The statement led to controversy among research and clinical communities. Although a number of papers have since been published arguing for the potential benefit of autism spectrum disorder screening, none adequately address the potential harms of autism spectrum disorder screening. This evidence gap may relate to confusion regarding how the US Preventive Services Task Force conceptualizes and evaluates potential harm. In this commentary, we explore how the US Preventive Services Task Force operationalizes harm and discuss how the potential for harm was described in the "I" statement on autism spectrum disorder screening. This information can serve as a guide for investigators working to study the benefits and harms of autism spectrum disorder screening in order to fill the research gaps cited by the US Preventive Services Task Force report. Finally, we recommend future research directions for exploring harms of autism spectrum disorder screening, filling cited research gaps, and ultimately ensuring that the benefits of autism spectrum disorder screening truly outweigh the harms for all children and their families.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends autism spectrum disorder screening at the 18- and 24-month well-child visits. However, despite widespread toddler screening, many children are not diagnosed until school age, and delayed diagnosis is more common among low-income and minority children. Offering autism spectrum disorder screening at preschool well-child checks might reduce disparities and lower the overall age of diagnosis and service initiation. However, screening tools that span the preschool ages and are tailored for primary care are needed.

This study aimed to define the core components of Family Navigation for autism spectrum disorder, a promising intervention to reduce disparities in care for this population. Teams from four trials of Family Navigation for autism spectrum disorder completed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist to outline intervention components. Through intervention component analysis and qualitative synthesis, we identified 11 core components across three domains: Training and Supervision, Navigator Tools, and Navigator Activities. We discuss the importance of identifying these core components and implications for future research and practice.

There is growing interest in Family Navigation as an approach to improving access to care for children with autism spectrum disorder, yet little data exist on the implementation of Family Navigation. The aim of this study was to identify potential failures in implementing Family Navigation for children with autism spectrum disorder, using a failure modes and effects analysis. This mixed-methods study was set within a randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of Family Navigation in reducing the time from screening to diagnosis and treatment for autism spectrum disorder across three states. Using standard failure modes and effects analysis methodology, experts in Family Navigation for autism spectrum disorder (n = 9) rated potential failures in implementation on a 10-point scale in three categories: likelihood of the failure occurring, likelihood of not detecting the failure, and severity of failure. Ratings were then used to create a risk priority number for each failure. The failure modes and effects analysis detected five areas for potential "high priority" failures in implementation: (1) setting up community-based services, (2) initial family meeting, (3) training, (4) fidelity monitoring, and (5) attending testing appointments. Reasons for failure included families not receptive, scheduling, and insufficient training time. The process with the highest risk profile was "setting up community-based services." Failure in "attending testing appointment" was rated as the most severe potential failure. A number of potential failures in Family Navigation implementation--along with strategies for mitigation--were identified. These data can guide those working to implement Family Navigation for children with autism spectrum disorder.

In 2013, the National Institute of Mental Health funded five trials of unique, multicomponent, systems-based innovations designed to improve access to early screening, diagnosis, and treatment of autism spectrum disorder--collectively known as the Autism Spectrum Disorder Pediatric, Early Detection, Engagement, and Services Network. As part of an ongoing effort to pool data and learn from shared experience, we collected information across all studies about innovation components and implementation strategies. First, each study group completed standardized checklists based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication and the Expert Recommendation for Implementing Change. Then, we interviewed principal and co-investigators of each study (n = 9) to further explore innovation components and assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. Innovation strategies were diverse (five different autism spectrum disorder screeners were used, 40% included early intervention trainings, 60% involved new technology). Common implementation strategies included developing stakeholder relationships and provider trainings. Barriers included inefficient systems of care, difficulty engaging families in the innovations, provider attitudes, and organizational culture (e.g. difficulty changing clinic processes). These findings suggest that--despite diverse settings and a variety of innovation content--common facilitators and challenges exist in implementing innovations to enhance access to early autism spectrum disorder screening, diagnosis, and treatment.

Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are at high risk for being overweight and obese. Little is known about how obesity in children with ASD is being addressed in primary care. This article reports findings from a survey completed by 327 general pediatricians, which included a fictional clinical vignette and Likert-scales assessing attitudes, practices, self-efficacy, and barriers to obesity management. Although the majority of respondents agreed pediatricians should be the main providers to manage obesity in children with ASD, few reported receiving adequate training to do so. Pediatricians were more likely to refer to developmental-behavioral pediatricians and dietitians for a child with ASD compared to a child without ASD. Higher self-efficacy was associated with increased weight-related counseling frequency by pediatricians.

In an effort to meet the needs of adults with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) while hospitalized, a team of experts and providers from Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH), MGH for Children as well as parents of individuals with ASD was sparked in 2013. This became a multidisciplinary collaborative, the MGH Autism Care Collaborative, to improve adult care for inpatients with ASD. The collaborative was created with three goals in mind: (1) to educate internal medicine adult inpatient providers and staff on the unique needs of adults with ASD when hospitalized; (2) to create ASD specific resources for internal medicine adult inpatient providers; and (3) to optimize patient care from admission to discharge among adults with ASD admitted to internal medicine services.

To identify medical problems most commonly presenting to emergency departments among individuals with autism as compared to non-autistic persons across age groups. Data was obtained from the 2010 National Emergency Department database and was analyzed by age categories: 3-5, 6-11, 12-15, 16-18 and 19 years and older. Epilepsy emerged as the leading presenting diagnosis among those with Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), ages 16-19 years and 19 over. Psychiatric conditions were primary among ASD individuals aged 12-15 years, accounting for more than 11% of all visits. In this sample, age-related differences were noted in medical diagnoses among autistic individuals as compared to non-autistic persons.

BackgroundFamily Navigation (FN) is an evidence-based care management intervention designed to reduce disparities in access to care by providing families with individually tailored support and care coordination. Early data suggest FN is effective, but effectiveness is significantly influenced by both contextual (e.g. setting) and individual (e.g., ethnicity) variables. To better understand how FN could be tailored to address this variability in effectiveness, we set forth to explore proposed adaptations to FN by both navigators and families who received FN.MethodsThis study was a nested qualitative study set within a larger randomized clinical trial of FN to improve access to autism diagnostic services in urban pediatric primary care practices in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut serving low-income, racial and ethnic minority families. Following FN implementation, key informant interviews were conducted based on the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Expanded (FRAME) with a purposeful sample of parents of children who received FN (n = 21) and navigators (n = 7). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and were coded using framework-guided rapid analysis to categorize proposed adaptations to FN.ResultsParents and navigators proposed 38 adaptations in four domains: 1) content of the intervention (n = 18), 2) context of the intervention (n = 10), 3) training and evaluation (n = 6), and 4) implementation and scale-up (n = 4). The most frequently endorsed adaptation recommendations focused on content (e.g., lengthening FN, providing parents with additional education on autism and parenting children with autism) and implementation (e.g., increasing access to navigation). Although probes targeted critical feedback, parents and navigators were overwhelmingly positive about FN.ConclusionsThis study builds upon prior FN effectiveness and implementation research by providing concrete areas for adaptation and refinement of the intervention. Recommendations by parents and navigators have the potential to inform improvement of existing navigation programs and development of new programs in similarly underserved populations. These findings are critical as adaptation (cultural and otherwise) is an important principle in the field of health equity. Ultimately, adaptations will need to be tested to determine clinical and implementation effectiveness.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT02359084, February 9, 2015.

Lay abstractEarly Intervention systems provide therapeutic services to families of young children birth to 3 years with developmental delays and are considered a natural access point to services for young children and their families. Research studies in the autism field have been interested in training providers to deliver evidence-based practices in Early Intervention systems to increase access to services for young children with an increased likelihood of being autistic. However, research has often overlooked that Early Intervention systems prioritize family-centered care, an approach to working with families that honors and respects their values and choices and that provides supports to strengthen family functioning. This commentary points out that family-centered care deserves greater attention in research being done in Early Intervention systems. We describe how family-centered care may shape how interventions are delivered, and discuss directions for future research to evaluate the impact of family-centered care alongside intervention delivery.

OBJECTIVE: Part C Early Intervention (EI) services have been shown to reduce autism symptoms and promote healthy development among young children. However, EI participation remains low, particularly among children from structurally marginalized communities. We investigated whether family navigation (FN) improved EI initiation following positive primary care screening for autism compared to conventional care management (CCM). METHODS: We conducted a randomized clinical trial among 339 families of children (ages 15-27 months) who screened as having an increased likelihood for autism at 11 urban primary care sites in 3 cities. Families were randomized to FN or CCM. Families in the FN arm received community-based outreach from a navigator trained to support families to overcome structural barriers to autism evaluation and services. EI service records were obtained from state or local agencies. The primary outcome of this study, EI service participation, was measured as the number of days from randomization to the first EI appointment. RESULTS: EI service records were available for 271 children; 156 (57.6%) children were not engaged with EI at study enrollment. Children were followed for 100 days after diagnostic ascertainment or until age 3, when Part C EI eligibility ends; 65 (89%, 21 censored) children in the FN arm and 50 (79%, 13 censored) children in the CCM arm were newly engaged in EI. In Cox proportional hazards regression, families receiving FN were approximately 54% more likely to engage EI than those receiving CCM (1.54 (95% confidence interval: 1.09-2.19), P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: FN improved the likelihood of EI participation among urban families from marginalized communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends that pediatricians screen all young children for autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, the US Preventive Services Task Force stated that there is insufficient evidence about the potential harms and benefits of universal ASD screening. To address this gap, we conducted qualitative interviews with caregivers of children who received a false-positive ASD screen to learn about families' perceptions of the harms and benefits of universal ASD screening. Culturally diverse caregivers (N = 26) of children with false-positive ASD screens completed qualitative interviews focused on parents' experiences with and recommendations to improve the ASD screening and evaluation process. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed using applied thematic analysis. Parents explained that the ASD screening and evaluation process increased their knowledge about child development and substantiated existing concerns. The ASD screening and evaluation process resulted in connecting their child to services, which parents felt led to improvements in their child's delays. Parents endorsed anxiety during wait times for the formal developmental assessment. However, all parents expressed that, if given the option, they would repeat the screening and evaluation process again. Caregivers recommended universal screening for ASD and suggested that screening extend beyond the pediatrician to other settings. From parents' perspectives, the connection to developmental services and increased knowledge of child development that resulted from the false-positive ASD screen outweighed the time-limited emotional distress triggered by a positive ASD screen. Overall, parents' preferences for universal ASD screening align with the AAP's recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Family navigation (FN), a care management strategy, helps families overcome systems and person-level barriers to care. We previously demonstrated FN's feasibility, acceptability, and potential efficacy for increasing access and reducing time to autism-related diagnostic services among low-income, minority children. In this paper, we describe modifications to FN in response to concerns raised in our first pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT), and then assess these modifications in a second pilot RCT. An advisory group recommended modifications to recruitment procedures and study conditions. Forty parent-child dyad participants with autism-related concerns were randomized to receive modified usual care (UC) or modified FN. We compared whether the first and second pilot RCTs differed in: participant enrollment, satisfaction with clinical care, and timely completion of the diagnostic assessment. Recruitment improved under the modified protocol with significantly fewer potentially eligible families refusing (19.5% vs 4.8%, P <.05) or being excluded from study enrollment (43.6% vs 0%, P <.01). Comparing the first and second pilot RCTs, regardless of study arm, families in the second pilot were more likely to complete diagnostic assessment (UC: hazard ratio [HR] 3.41, 95% confidence intervals [CI 1.20, 9.68]; FN: HR 2.64, 95% CI [1.31, 5.30]) and report greater satisfaction with clinical care. In the second pilot, compared to UC, FN continued increase the likelihood of completing the diagnostic assessment (HR: 2.57; 95% CI [1.22, 5.40]). Easy-to-implement system-level enhancements improved study recruitment, satisfaction with care, and completion of a diagnostic assessment. With enhancement, FN continued to confer benefits to families. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article suggests four priority areas for the next phase of autism health equity research and advocacy and calls on the community to get to work. Topics discussed include sociodemographic factors that are underreported in autism intervention research, efforts that must be taken to grow and train the workforce in cultural competence and other factors that impact quality in care, and impact of poor autism-related funding policies from insurers on workforce retention and development.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Hospital admissions can be difficult for patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We created an autism-specific care plan (ACP) to help improve the hospital experience for patients with ASD, and we tested feasibility and acceptability and compared the experience of care for children with and without an ACP. METHODS: We performed a nonrandomized, retrospective chart review of all patients with ASD and a hospital admission from January 2013 to December 2013 (n = 142) to determine feasibility of the intervention. We then mailed surveys to all 142 families to measure experience with the ACP and to compare experience of care in those who did and did not have an ACP. Using multivariable linear regression we assessed the association of experience of care with ACP use while adjusting for covariates. RESULTS: The ACP was well tolerated by parents and used frequently by staff. Compared with parents who did not use the ACP, parents who used the ACP reported a better experience relating to their general hospital experience (B = 1.48, P < .001) and staff attention to their child's ASD-specific needs (B = 3.07, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: According to this pilot study, care plans are feasible and hold promise to improve the experience of care for children with ASD and their families in the hospital setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the role of hospital-based social workers in addressing the needs of people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Topics mentioned include the implementation of a patient-centered care plan for autistic, the leadership role of social workers in the initiative of such plan, and the need for the staff involved with the patients to be trained to respect the specific communication needs of patients with challenges associated with ASD diagnosis.

The article discusses that the Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by impairments in communication and social interaction and with an estimated prevalence. It mentions that the prevalence of ASD has risen dramatically, leading to concerns about the health and educational systems' capacity to diagnose and treat the evergrowing population of individuals with ASD, including how much services will cost and how they will be paid for.

OBJECTIVE: To describe racial differences in use of specialty care among children with autism spectrum disorder. METHODS: We identified patients ages 2 to 21 years with an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision code of autism (299.0) seen from 2000 to 2011 at a major academic health center by using a research patient data repository and determined rates of specialty provider visits and procedures by race. We then used logistic regression to determine the associations of rates of subspecialty visits and procedures with race and ethnicity, controlling for gender, age, and payer type. RESULTS: We identified 3615 patients (2935 white, 243 Hispanic, 188 African American, and 249 other). The most striking differences were in use of gastroenterology (GI)/nutrition services. Nonwhite children were less likely to use GI/nutrition specialty providers (African American, odds ratio = 0.32 [95th percentile confidence interval: 0.18-0.55]; Hispanic, 0.32 [0.20-0.51]; other, 0.56 [0.34-0.92]) as well as neurology (African American, 0.52 [0.33-0.83]; Hispanic, 0.40 [0.27-0.59]) and psychiatry/psychology (African American, 0.44 [0.27-0.72]; Hispanic, 0.60 [0.41-0.88]; other, 0.62 [0.38-0.99]). Nonwhite children were less likely to have had GI studies: colonoscopy (African American, 0.23 [0.10-0.53]; Hispanic, 0.26 [0.14-0.50]), endoscopy (African American, 0.31 [0.16-0.58]; Hispanic, 0.27 [0.16-0.46]; other, 0.53 [0.31-0.90]), and stool studies (African American, 0.49 [0.30-0.91]). Hispanic children had lower rates of neurologic and other testing: EEG (Hispanic, 0.53 [0.35-0.78]), brain MRI (African American, 0.37 [0.22-0.63]; Hispanic, 0.62 [0.42-0.90]), sleep study (Hispanic, 0.18 [0.04-0.76]), and neuropsychiatric testing (Hispanic, 0.55 [0.32-0.96]). CONCLUSIONS: We found racial and ethnic differences among children diagnosed with autism in use of care and procedures. Possible explanations for these findings include differences in presentation, referral rates, or referral follow through. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. This survey assessed the in-hospital needs of patients diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Methods. Parents were recruited to complete a 21-item survey about the needs of their child with an ASD while in the hospital. ASD diagnosis was reported by parents at the time of the survey. The results of the survey were analyzed and evaluated in 3 distinct categories of need. Results. We documented a range of responses associated with ASD-specific needs during hospitalization. Common concerns included child safety and the importance of acknowledging individual communication methods. Conclusions. In a population of children with ASDs, parents report a diverse range of needs while in the hospital. These data support the concept that a pragmatic assessment of individual communication and sensory differences is likely to be essential in the development of an appropriate inpatient care plan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the study "Timing of the Diagnosis of Autism in African American Children," by J. N. Constantino, A. M. Abbacchi, C. Saulnier and colleagues, that was published within the issue. Topics discussed include access to services for youth with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), delay between first parental developmental concern and ASD diagnosis, and history of racism and exclusion in the U.S. particularly in medical care and research.

The article discusses a study on the pediatric residents' knowledge of an comfort with caring for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Topics discussed include a training session conducted specifically for residents at MassGeneral Hospital For Children (MGHfC) on caring for patients with ASD and the need for more education to increase resident competence in caring for individuals with ASD given the low rates of direct communication with patients with ASD reported by residents.

The purpose of this Letter to the Editor is to discuss the recent paper, "Lessons learned: Engaging culturally diverse families in neurodevelopmental disorders intervention research" by Ratto et al. Specifically, we are interested in further exploring the question of "who participates in autism spectrum disorder intervention research," and how this question may impact interpretation of Ratto and colleagues' paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors comment on a study published within the issue which presented data on parent-reported prevalence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) among children in the U.S. Topics covered include heterogeneity in ASD prevalences across states in 2014, data on an ever-increasing trend of ASD prevalence in recent years, and the recommendation of publishing metrics of heterogeneity alongside national estimates of ASD prevalence.

The article discusses a study that managed 68,197 children who screened negative for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) using the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (MCHAT). Study highlights include the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that recommend ASD-specific screening at 18 and 24 months, knowledge gaps cited in the 2016 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, and the discrepancy between MCHAT sensitivities.