Mapping the autistic advantage from the accounts of adults diagnosed with autism: A qualitative study

This is the final version. Available on open access from Mary Ann Liebert via the DOI in this recordBackground: Autism has been associated with specific cognitive strengths. Strengths and weaknesses have traditionally been conceptualized as dichotomous. Methods: We conducted 28 semi-structured interviews with autistic adults. Maximum variation sampling was used to ensure diversity in relation to support needs. We asked which personal traits adults attributed to their autism, and how these have helped in the workplace, in relationships, and beyond. Data were collected in two stages. Responses were analyzed using content and thematic techniques. Results: The ability to hyperfocus, attention to detail, good memory, and creativity were the most frequently described traits. Participants also described specific qualities relating to social interaction, such as honesty, loyalty, and empathy for animals or for other autistic people. In thematic analysis we found that traits associated with autism could be experienced either as advantageous or disadvantageous dependent on moderating influences. Moderating influences included the social context in which behaviors occurred, the ability to control behaviors, and the extent to which traits were expressed. Conclusions: Separating autistic strengths from weaknesses may be a false dichotomy if traits cannot be isolated as separate constructs of strengths or deficits. If attempts to isolate problematic traits from advantageous traits are ill conceived, there may be implications for interventions that have reduction in autistic traits as a primary outcome measure.Wellcome Trus

PARTNERS collaborative care for people with psychosis in the UK: Using tape assisted recall to explore practitioner-client interactions

In the UK there is a need to better support people with bipolar and schizophrenia not currently in crisis. PARTNERS is testing collaborative care by placing secondary practitioners in primary care, who take a coaching approach to improve client’s wellbeing across mental and physical health, and social and community life. During our formative evaluation we supported practitioners to follow PARTNERS through training, manuals, supervision and researcher support. To evaluate fidelity we recorded sessions between practitioners and clients, then interviewed individuals using tape assisted recall (6 sessions, 6 practitioner interviews, 6 client interviews). We coded transcriptions using a theoretical framework developed from our collaborative care model. We are currently analysing the codes drawing from a realist approach, looking at ways the practitioner—client sessions did and did not align with our model, to identify patterns for how this may have affected practitioner and client experiences. Interim findings show that one practitioner administered PARTNERS with less fidelity than the other. One practitioner listened to and emotionally supported clients, while also taking action on their behalf. The second practitioner focused on developing a shared understanding of clients’ needs, and agreeing and working towards person-centred goals. All six clients appreciated the support they received from the service, but those who worked with the second practitioner were more able to describe the progress they had made towards improving their lives. We will discuss final findings and the adaptations we made to our model in response, in preparation for the clinical trial currently taking place