Diagnosing autism: <scp>A</scp>ustralian paediatric research network surveys

Randall, Melinda; Albein‐Urios, Natalia; Brignell, Amanda; Gulenc, Alisha; Hennel, Sabine; Coates, Cathy; Symeonides, Christos; Marraffa, Catherine; Silove, Natalie; Bayl, Vivian; Woolfenden, Susan; Williams, Katrina

doi:10.1111/jpc.13029

Cited by 24 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, there is broad consensus, and widely accepted quality standards, that any ASD assessment should also include examinations targeting other neurodevelopmental and mental health problems, other medical conditions, genetic syndromes, visual, hearing and speech impairments, as well as observations in more than one setting (Gillberg, ; NICE, ). Nevertheless, diagnostic practice among health professionals is not always consistent with internationally established guidelines (Randall et al., ; Taylor et al., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secular changes in the symptom level of clinically diagnosed autism

Arvidsson

Gillberg

Lichtenstein

et al. 2018

Child Psychology Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Secular changes in the symptom level of clinically diagnosed autism

Arvidsson

Gillberg

Lichtenstein

et al. 2018

Child Psychology Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While three previous studies have investigated diagnostic practices for ASD in Australia, this research has included only paediatricians, 20–24 psychiatrists 20 23 24 and psychologists. 24 Skellern et al 22 examined the assessment practices of paediatricians (N=79) and child psychiatrists (N=26) in Queensland, finding considerable variability in the diagnostic practices of these clinicians.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic evaluation for autism spectrum disorder: a survey of health professionals in Australia

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThere is currently no agreed Australian standard for the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) even though there are specific diagnostic services available. We suspected inconsistency in the diagnostic practices of health professionals in Australia and aimed to assess these practices across the nation by surveying all relevant professional groups.DesignIn this study, we completed a survey of 173 health professionals whose clinical practice includes participating in the diagnostic process for ASD in Australia. Participants completed an online questionnaire which included questions about their diagnostic setting, diagnostic practice and diagnostic outcomes in 2014–2015.ParticipantsParticipants covered a range of disciplines including paediatrics, psychiatry, psychology, speech pathology and occupational therapy. All states and territories of Australia were represented.SettingParticipants came from a range of service settings which included hospitals, non-governmental organisations, publicly funded diagnostic services and private practice.ResultsThere was variability in diagnostic practices for ASD in Australia. While some clinicians work within a multidisciplinary assessment team, others practice independently and rarely collaborate with other clinicians to make a diagnostic decision. Only half of the respondents reported that they include a standardised objective assessment tool such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule in ASD assessments, and one-third indicated that they do not include measures of development, cognition and language in assessments where ASD is suspected.ConclusionsReported practice of some professionals in Australia may not be consistent with international best practice guidelines for ASD diagnosis. These findings highlight the need for a minimum national standard for ASD diagnosis throughout Australia that ensures best practice regardless of the type of setting in which the service is provided.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, assessment at one point in time is unable to address the uncertainty that arises due to changes over time, which may move children into, or out of, diagnostic categorisation . In response to this uncertainty, diagnostic methodologies vary considerably . They may be influenced further by non‐clinical factors, such as the opportunities for intervention funding …”

Section: Nbp Services and Clinical Uncertaintymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9][10][11] In response to this uncertainty, diagnostic methodologies vary considerably. 12 They may be influenced further by non-clinical factors, such as the opportunities for intervention funding. 13 Considering these challenges collectively, there is clearly a limit to which the uncertainty intrinsic to NB clinical diagnosis is able to be overcome, regardless of methodological rigour.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%