The feasibility of low intensity psychological therapy for co-occurring depression in adult Autism:The ADEPT study - a pilot randomised controlled trial

Low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy including behavioural activation is an evidence-based treatment for depression, a condition frequently co-occurring with autism. The feasibility of adapting low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy for depression to meet the needs of autistic adults via a randomised controlled trial was investigated. The adapted intervention (guided self-help) comprised materials for nine individual sessions with a low-intensity psychological therapist. Autistic adults (n = 70) with depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score ⩾10) recruited from National Health Service adult autism services and research cohorts were randomly allocated to guided self-help or treatment as usual. Outcomes at 10-, 16- and 24-weeks post-randomisation were blind to treatment group. Rates of retention in the study differed by treatment group with more participants attending follow-up in the guided self-help group than treatment as usual. The adapted intervention was well-received, 86% (n = 30/35) of participants attended the pre-defined ‘dose’ of five sessions of treatment and 71% (25/35) attended all treatment sessions. The findings of this pilot randomised controlled trial indicate that low-intensity cognitive behaviour therapy informed by behavioural activation can be successfully adapted to meet the needs of autistic people. Evaluation of the effectiveness of this intervention in a full scale randomised controlled trial is now warranted

Autism Diagnostic Assessments With Children, Adolescents, and Adults Prior to and During the COVID-19 Pandemic:A Cross-Sectional Survey of Professionals

BACKGROUND: Access to timely high quality autism diagnostic assessments has traditionally been patchy; many individuals wait months, if not years, for an appointment. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has likely impacted autism diagnostic services. This study investigated professionals' experiences of, and thoughts about: (1) how autism diagnostic assessments were conducted before the pandemic; (2) adaptations to service provision because of the pandemic; and (3) challenges, risks, advantages and opportunities associated with autism assessments conducted via online platforms (telehealth). METHOD: Fifty-two professionals, based in different autism diagnostic services and working with children, adolescents and/or adults, completed an online cross-sectional survey in August and September 2020. This comprised demographic questions (about professionals' roles and experiences), and closed and open questions about service provision and telehealth autism assessments. RESULTS: There was substantial variation in how autism assessments were conducted prior to and during the pandemic; for example, in relation to the number of professionals involved in the assessment and types of structured, semi-structured and unstructured measures used to conduct this. Fifty-two percent of participants (n = 27) reported some service disruption (e.g., full closure, substantial reduction in provision, and/or pausing of in person appointments). Waiting times for assessment had become longer for 58% of services (n = 30), due to pandemic-related disruption. Six themes emerged from thematic analysis of open responses: (1) the autism diagnostic pathway, pre-pandemic; (2) initial impact of the pandemic on service delivery; (3) conducting autism assessments during the pandemic; (4) working remotely; (5) improving service design and delivery; and (6) post-diagnostic support. Views about the accessibility, validity, and reliability of conducting telehealth autism assessments were polarized. Some participants considered this efficient, flexible, and adequate; others viewed this as unethical and inappropriate. What constitutes good practice in telehealth autism assessments remains unclear, but there is a general openness to using this method (potentially in a hybrid telehealth—in person model), provided rigor and standardization are enhanced. CONCLUSIONS: The pandemic has potentially compounded existing bottlenecks to the autism diagnostic pathway. Future research should seek to improve timeliness, standardization, accessibility and robustness of this pathway, and the validity and reliability of telehealth autism assessments

Telehealth Autism Diagnostic Assessments with Children, Young People, and Adults:Qualitative Interview Study with England-Wide Multidisciplinary Health Professionals

BACKGROUND: Autism spectrum disorder (hereafter, autism) is a common neurodevelopmental condition. Core traits can range from subtle to severe and fluctuate depending on context. Individuals can present for diagnostic assessments during childhood or adulthood. However, waiting times for assessment are typically lengthy, and many individuals wait months or even years to be seen. Traditionally, there has been a lack of standardization between services regarding how many and which multidisciplinary health professionals are involved in the assessment and the methods (diagnostic tools) that are used. The COVID-19 pandemic has affected routine service provision because of stay-at-home mandates and social distancing guidelines. Autism diagnostic services have had to adapt, such as by switching from conducting assessments in person to doing these fully via telehealth (defined as the use of remote technologies for the provision of health care) or using blended in-person or telehealth methods. OBJECTIVE: This study explored health professionals’ experiences of and perspectives about conducting telehealth autism diagnostic assessments, including barriers and facilitators to this, during the COVID-19 pandemic; potential telehealth training and supervision needs of health professionals; how the quality and effectiveness of telehealth autism diagnostic services can be enhanced; and experiences of delivering postdiagnostic support remotely. METHODS: A total of 45 health professionals, working in varied settings across England, participated in one-off, in-depth semistructured qualitative interviews. These were conducted via videoconferencing or telephone. Altogether, participants represented 7 professional disciplines (psychiatry, medicine, psychology, speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, nursing, and social work). The data were then analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Thematic analysis indicated the following 7 themes: practicalities of telehealth, telehealth autism diagnostic assessments, diagnostic conclusions, clinical considerations, postdiagnostic support, future ways of working, and health professionals’ experiences and needs. Overall, telehealth autism diagnostic assessments were deemed by many participants to be convenient, flexible, and efficient for some patients, families, and health professionals. However, not all patients could be assessed in this way, for example, because of digital poverty, complex clinical presentation, or concerns about risk and safeguarding. Working remotely encouraged innovation, including the development of novel assessment measures. However, some participants expressed significant concerns about the validity and reliability of remotely assessing social communication conditions. CONCLUSIONS: A shift to telehealth meant that autism diagnostic services remained operational during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, this method of working has potentially affected the parity of service, with people presenting with clinical complexity having to potentially wait longer to be seen or given a diagnostic opinion. There is also a lack of standardization in the provision of services. Further research should identify evidence-based ways of enhancing the timeliness, accessibility, and robustness of the autism diagnostic pathway, as well as the validity and reliability of telehealth methods

Australian universities, government research and the application of climate change knowledge in Australian coastal zone management

One of the key issues in Australia for sustainable management of the coastal zone is that the science of climate change has not been widely used by decision-makers to inform coastal governance. There exist opportunities to enhance the dialogue between knowledge-makers and decision-makers, and universities have a key role to play in researching and fostering better linkages. At the heart of these linkages lies the principle of more informed engagement between historically disparate groups. In Australia, the new &lsquo;Flagship&rsquo; research programme, funded by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), emphasizes their partnering with universities in a more systematic and collaborative manner than previously achieved in such research projects. In order to address sustainability in general and coastal adaptation to climate change in particular, interdisciplinary learning needs to occur between the social and natural sciences; also, transdisciplinary understanding of that interaction needs to be fully developed. New methods of communicative engagement such as computer visualizations and animations, together with deliberative techniques, can help policy-makers and planners reach a better understanding of the significance of the science of climate change impacts on the coast. Deeper engagement across historically disparate groups can lead to the development of epistemological and methodological synergies between social and natural scientists, adaptive learning, reflexive governance, and greater analytical and deliberative understanding among scientists, policymakers and the wider public. This understanding can lead in turn to enhance coastal governance for climate adaptation on the coast.<br /