Barriers to healthcare and their relationship to well-being and social support for autistic adults during COVID-19.

AIM: The present study aimed to investigate barriers to healthcare and their relationships to social and emotional well-being and intersectional inequalities for autistic adults during COVID-19 restrictions in the UK. BACKGROUND: Autistic adults experience severe health inequalities and report more barriers to accessing health services compared to other both disabled and non-disabled populations. The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted many areas of society that may have increased vulnerability of autistic people to social and health inequalities, including delivery of healthcare from in-person to remote methods. METHOD: One hundred twenty-eight autistic adults who lived in the UK took part in an online survey. Measures included the Barriers to Healthcare Checklist (Short Form) and PROMIS outcome measure bank to assess emotional well-being and social support. Participants rated their agreement with items, retrospectively considering three different points of the trajectory of COVID-19 restrictions: before COVID-19, during the first lockdown in spring 2020, and in the month prior to taking the survey during autumn 2020. They completed a follow-up survey six months later to continue to assess change as restrictions in the UK were eased. FINDINGS: The average number of barriers to healthcare showed no significant change between all four time points. However, the nature of barriers to healthcare changed at the point of lockdown and persisted beyond the easing of COVID-19 restrictions. Barriers to healthcare were associated with some social and emotional well-being variables and demographic groups including gender, education and presence of additional disabilities. The findings may help to identify areas to target to improve access to both remote and in-person health systems for autistic people as modes of delivery continue to change over time.

How can we optimise learning from trials in child and adolescent mental health?

Improving child and adolescent mental health requires the careful development and rigorous testing of interventions and delivery methods. This includes universal school-based mindfulness training, evaluated in the My Resilience in Adolescence (MYRIAD) trial reported in this special edition. While discovering effective interventions through randomised controlled trials is our ultimate aim, null or negative results can and should play an important role in progressing our understanding of what works. Unfortunately, alongside publication bias there can be a tendency to ignore, spin or unfairly undermine disappointing findings. This creates research waste that can increase risk and reduce benefits for future service users. We advocate several practices to help optimise learning from all trials, whatever the results: stronger intervention design reduces the likelihood of foreseeable null or negative results; an evidence-informed conceptual map of the subject area assists with understanding how results contribute to the knowledge base; mixed methods trial designs aid explanation of outcome results; various open science practices support the dispassionate analysis of data and transparent reporting of trial findings; and preparation for null or negative results helps to temper stakeholder expectations and increase understanding of why we conduct trials in the first place. To embed these practices, research funders must be willing to pay for pilot studies and 'thicker' trials, and publishers should judge trials according to their conduct and not their outcome. MYRIAD is an exemplar of how to design, conduct and report a trial to optimise learning, with important implications for practice.