A comparison of the content and nature of worries of young people with and without autism spectrum disorder as they transition out of school

Background: Transition from secondary school is an essential time in development. For adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) it can be particularly challenging, with studies highlighting low employment rates, reduced participation in further education, and higher levels of isolation. Previous research has shown that worries held by adolescents with intellectual disabilities (ID) differ from their non-ID peers. However, the worries of adolescents with autism are under-researched. This project aimed to explore the content and impact of worries of young people with autism at the stage of transition from school. Methods: Twenty-two participants with ASD and twenty-two participants without ASD, aged 16 to 18, were recruited from mainstream schools in the Scottish Highlands. Participants completed a ‘Worry Interview’; a semi-structured interview modified from a previous study investigating worries in young people with IDs. The participants’ levels of rumination and distress about their most salient worries were measured. An anxiety scale was also completed. Results: Content analysis highlighted differences between the two groups’ worries. Participants with ASD were more concerned about change and friendship, whereas those without ASD had more salient worries about subjects like work and money. The ASD group were significantly more distressed by their worries, and were also significantly more anxious than the control group. Conclusions: Key differences in the nature of worries between the two groups were highlighted. Consideration should be given to the specific concerns of pupils as they approach leaving school. This could ease the transition process by reducing anxiety and distress

Community Voices: Lessons for National Health Policy

Highlights successful models that were designed to improve access to health care for vulnerable populations, describes ways that government can support local communities, and emphasizes the need for fundamental reform of the U.S. healthcare system

Is there an association between prenatal testosterone and autistic traits in adolescents?

Prenatal testosterone (pT) is a crucial component in physiological masculinization in humans. In line with the Prenatal Sex Steroid Theory of autism, some studies have found a positive correlation between pT and autistic traits in childhood. However, effects in adolescence have not been explored. Hormonal and environmental changes occurring during puberty may alter the strength or the nature of prenatal effects on autistic traits. The current study examines if pT relates to autistic traits in a non-clinical sample of adolescents and young adults (N = 97, 170 observations; age 13-21 years old). It also explores pT interactions with pubertal stage and timing. PT concentrations were measured from amniotic fluid extracted in the 2nd trimester of gestation via amniocentesis conducted for clinical purposes. Autistic traits were measured by self- and parent-reports on the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) which provides a total score and 5 sub-scores (social skills, communication, imagination, attention switching and attention to detail). Self-reported pubertal stage was regressed on age to provide a measure of relative timing. We found no statistical evidence for a direct association between pT and autistic traits in this adolescent sample (males, females or full sample). Exploratory analyses suggested that pT correlated positively with autistic traits in adolescents with earlier puberty-onset, but statistical robustness of this finding was limited. Further exploratory post-hoc tests suggested the pT-by-pubertal timing interaction was stronger in males relative to females, in self-reported compared to parent-reported AQ and specifically for social traits. These findings require replication in larger samples. Findings have implications for understanding the effects of pT on human behavior, specifically existence of effects in adolescence

Improving effect size estimation and statistical power with multi-echo fMRI and its impact on understanding the neural systems supporting mentalizing.

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) research is routinely criticized for being statistically underpowered due to characteristically small sample sizes and much larger sample sizes are being increasingly recommended. Additionally, various sources of artifact inherent in fMRI data can have detrimental impact on effect size estimates and statistical power. Here we show how specific removal of non-BOLD artifacts can improve effect size estimation and statistical power in task-fMRI contexts, with particular application to the social-cognitive domain of mentalizing/theory of mind. Non-BOLD variability identification and removal is achieved in a biophysical and statistically principled manner by combining multi-echo fMRI acquisition and independent components analysis (ME-ICA). Without smoothing, group-level effect size estimates on two different mentalizing tasks were enhanced by ME-ICA at a median rate of 24% in regions canonically associated with mentalizing, while much more substantial boosts (40-149%) were observed in non-canonical cerebellar areas. Effect size boosting occurs via reduction of non-BOLD noise at the subject-level and consequent reductions in between-subject variance at the group-level. Smoothing can attenuate ME-ICA-related effect size improvements in certain circumstances. Power simulations demonstrate that ME-ICA-related effect size enhancements enable much higher-powered studies at traditional sample sizes. Cerebellar effects observed after applying ME-ICA may be unobservable with conventional imaging at traditional sample sizes. Thus, ME-ICA allows for principled design-agnostic non-BOLD artifact removal that can substantially improve effect size estimates and statistical power in task-fMRI contexts. ME-ICA could mitigate some issues regarding statistical power in fMRI studies and enable novel discovery of aspects of brain organization that are currently under-appreciated and not well understood.This work was supported by a Wellcome Trust project grant to SB-C and ETB. MVL was supported by the Wellcome Trust and fellowships from Jesus College, Cambridge and the British Academy. PK was supported by the National Institutes of Health–Cambridge Scholars Program. ETB is employed half-time by the University of Cambridge and halftime by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).This is the author accepted manuscript. It first appeared from Elseiver at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.022

Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States Final Report

On April 9, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. issued Executive Order 14023 establishing this Commission, to consist of “individuals having experience with and knowledge of the Federal judiciary and the Supreme Court of the United States.” The Order charged the Commission with producing a report for the President that addresses three sets of questions. First, the Report should include “[a]n account of the contemporary commentary and debate about the role and operation of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system and about the functioning of the constitutional process by which the President nominates and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints Justices to the Supreme Court.” Second, the Report should consider the “historical background of other periods in the Nation’s history when the Supreme Court’s role and the nominations and advice-and-consent process were subject to critical assessment and prompted proposals for reform.” Third, the Report should provide an analysis of the principal arguments for and against particular proposals to reform the Supreme Court, “including an appraisal of [their] merits and legality,” and should be informed by “a broad spectrum of ideas.” The Report begins by explaining the genesis of today’s Court reform debate, including by identifying developments that gave rise to President Biden’s decision to issue the April 2021 Executive Order, particularly the debates surrounding the most recent nominations. This Introduction emphasizes that the Court’s composition and jurisprudence long have been subjects of public controversy and debate in the nation’s civic life: The Court serves as a crucial guardian of the rule of law and also plays a central role in major social and political conflicts. Its decisions have profound effects on the life of the nation. Though conflict surrounding the processes by which the President nominates and the Senate confirms Justices is not new, it has become more intensely partisan in recent years. The Introduction also articulates three common and interrelated ideas frequently invoked in reform debates and throughout the Chapters of the Report: the importance of protecting or enhancing the Court’s legitimacy; the role of judicial independence in our system of government; and the value of democracy and its relationship to the Supreme Court’s decisionmaking. These important ideas can mean different things to different people. The Introduction discusses the range of meanings ascribed to these terms, with the aim of clarifying how they are deployed in arguments for and against reform

Preference for biological motion is reduced in ASD: implications for clinical trials and the search for biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: The neurocognitive mechanisms underlying autism spectrum disorder (ASD) remain unclear. Progress has been largely hampered by small sample sizes, variable age ranges and resulting inconsistent findings. There is a pressing need for large definitive studies to delineate the nature and extent of key case/control differences to direct research towards fruitful areas for future investigation. Here we focus on perception of biological motion, a promising index of social brain function which may be altered in ASD. In a large sample ranging from childhood to adulthood, we assess whether biological motion preference differs in ASD compared to neurotypical participants (NT), how differences are modulated by age and sex and whether they are associated with dimensional variation in concurrent or later symptomatology. METHODS: Eye-tracking data were collected from 486 6-to-30-year-old autistic (N = 282) and non-autistic control (N = 204) participants whilst they viewed 28 trials pairing biological (BM) and control (non-biological, CTRL) motion. Preference for the biological motion stimulus was calculated as (1) proportion looking time difference (BM-CTRL) and (2) peak look duration difference (BM-CTRL). RESULTS: The ASD group showed a present but weaker preference for biological motion than the NT group. The nature of the control stimulus modulated preference for biological motion in both groups. Biological motion preference did not vary with age, gender, or concurrent or prospective social communicative skill within the ASD group, although a lack of clear preference for either stimulus was associated with higher social-communicative symptoms at baseline. LIMITATIONS: The paired visual preference we used may underestimate preference for a stimulus in younger and lower IQ individuals. Our ASD group had a lower average IQ by approximately seven points. 18% of our sample was not analysed for various technical and behavioural reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Biological motion preference elicits small-to-medium-sized case-control effects, but individual differences do not strongly relate to core social autism associated symptomatology. We interpret this as an autistic difference (as opposed to a deficit) likely manifest in social brain regions. The extent to which this is an innate difference present from birth and central to the autistic phenotype, or the consequence of a life lived with ASD, is unclear

IMPRoving Outcomes for children exposed to domestic ViolencE (IMPROVE): an evidence synthesis

BackgroundExposure to domestic violence and abuse (DVA) during childhood and adolescence increases the risk of negative outcomes across the lifespan.ObjectivesTo synthesise evidence on the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of interventions for children exposed to DVA, with the aim of making recommendations for further research.Design(1) A systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; (2) a systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; (3) a network meta-analysis (NMA) of controlled trials and cost-effectiveness analysis; (4) an overview of current UK provision of interventions; and (5) consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.SettingsNorth America (11), the Netherlands (1) and Israel (1) for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; the USA (4) and the UK (1) for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and the UK for the overview of current UK provision of interventions and consultations with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.ParticipantsA total of 1345 children for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions; 100 children, 202 parents and 39 professionals for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions; and 16 young people, six parents and 20 service providers and commissioners for the consultation with young people, parents, service providers and commissioners.InterventionsPsychotherapeutic, advocacy, parenting skills and advocacy, psychoeducation, psychoeducation and advocacy, guided self-help.Main outcome measuresInternalising symptoms and externalising behaviour, mood, depression symptoms and diagnosis, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms and self-esteem for the systematic review of controlled trials of interventions and NMA; views about and experience of interventions for the systematic review of qualitative studies of participant and professional experience of interventions and consultations.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Science Citation Index, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Services Abstracts, Social Care Online, Sociological Abstracts, Social Science Citation Index, World Health Organization trials portal and clinicaltrials.gov.Review methodsA narrative review; a NMA and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis; and a qualitative synthesis.ResultsThe evidence base on targeted interventions was small, with limited settings and types of interventions; children were mostly &lt; 14 years of age, and there was an absence of comparative studies. The interventions evaluated in trials were mostly psychotherapeutic and psychoeducational interventions delivered to the non-abusive parent and child, usually based on the child’s exposure to DVA (not specific clinical or broader social needs). Qualitative studies largely focused on psychoeducational interventions, some of which included the abusive parent. The evidence for clinical effectiveness was as follows: 11 trials reported improvements in behavioural or mental health outcomes, with modest effect sizes but significant heterogeneity and high or unclear risk of bias. Psychoeducational group-based interventions delivered to the child were found to be more effective for improving mental health outcomes than other types of intervention. Interventions delivered to (non-abusive) parents and to children were most likely to be effective for improving behavioural outcomes. However, there is a large degree of uncertainty around comparisons, particularly with regard to mental health outcomes. In terms of evidence of cost-effectiveness, there were no economic studies of interventions. Cost-effectiveness was modelled on the basis of the NMA, estimating differences between types of interventions. The outcomes measured in trials were largely confined to children’s mental health and behavioural symptoms and disorders, although stakeholders’ concepts of success were broader, suggesting that a broader range of outcomes should be measured in trials. Group-based psychoeducational interventions delivered to children and non-abusive parents in parallel were largely acceptable to all stakeholders. There is limited evidence for the acceptability of other types of intervention. In terms of the UK evidence base and service delivery landscape, there were no UK-based trials, few qualitative studies and little widespread service evaluation. Most programmes are group-based psychoeducational interventions. However, the funding crisis in the DVA sector is significantly undermining programme delivery.ConclusionsThe evidence base regarding the acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for children exposed to DVA is underdeveloped. There is an urgent need for more high-quality studies, particularly trials, that are designed to produce actionable, generalisable findings that can be implemented in real-world settings and that can inform decisions about which interventions to commission and scale. We suggest that there is a need to pause the development of new interventions and to focus on the systematic evaluation of existing programmes. With regard to the UK, we have identified three types of programme that could be justifiably prioritised for further study: psycho-education delivered to mothers and children, or children alone; parent skills training in combination with advocacy: and interventions involving the abusive parent/caregiver. We also suggest that there is need for key stakeholders to come together to explicitly identify and address the structural, practical and cultural barriers that may have hampered the development of the UK evidence base to date.Future work recommendationsThere is a need for well-designed, well-conducted and well-reported UK-based randomised controlled trials with cost-effectiveness analyses and nested qualitative studies. Development of consensus in the field about core outcome data sets is required. There is a need for further exploration of the acceptability and effectiveness of interventions for specific groups of children and young people (i.e. based on ethnicity, age, trauma exposure and clinical profile). There is also a need for an investigation of the context in which interventions are delivered, including organisational setting and the broader community context, and the evaluation of qualities, qualifications and disciplines of personnel delivering interventions. We recommend prioritisation of psychoeducational interventions and parent skills training delivered in combination with advocacy in the next phase of trials, and exploratory trials of interventions that engage both the abusive and the non-abusive parent.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013004348 and PROSPERO CRD420130043489.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme.</jats:sec