Autistic young people's experiences of remote psychological interventions during COVID-19.

LAY ABSTRACT: Recently, therapy has been delivered at a distance (i.e. remotely) to help control the spread of coronavirus. Clinicians have voiced concerns that remote delivery is unsuitable for certain individuals, including those who are autistic, but they have also highlighted potential benefits for autistic individuals. Benefits include some individuals feeling more comfortable receiving therapy at home. This is the first study to interview autistic individuals about their experience of remote therapy. Participants were six young people aged 15-18 years and eight clinicians. Participants described their experience of remote delivery, including challenges, benefits, and suggestions. Most of these supported previous research findings, but some were new or provided further insight into those already identified. A newly identified challenge was knowing online social etiquette. All participants found aspects of the experience challenging, but all identified benefits and most voiced that remote sessions should be offered to young people. Participants further identified individual characteristics that may make someone less suited to remote delivery (e.g. shyness). They also identified ways of making the experience of remote delivery easier (e.g. sitting with a pet). Young people's and clinicians' views were similar overall, with only subtle differences. For example, young people uniquely voiced that remote delivery was similar to in-person, that benefits were hard to identify, and provided distinct reasons for the social interaction feeling less intense remotely. Findings may be used to improve remote delivery, for guiding future research, and as a case for continuing to offer it to those who may most benefit.

Examining clinicians' concerns delivering telemental health interventions directly to autistic individuals during COVID-19.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated the adoption of telemental health (TMH). Pre-pandemic, clinicians had voiced many TMH concerns, but these had not been investigated with respect to autism spectrum disorder (ASD) even with it being known that there are distinct ASD-associated challenges for in-person mental health interventions. Method: A convenience sample of (n = 55) clinicians completed an online survey regarding their perspectives of adopting TMH interventions in ASD, with closed- and open-answered questions. Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed descriptively/inferentially and via Content Analysis, respectively. Results: Multiple clinicians endorsed each TMH challenges/barrier previously identified as concerns in the non-ASD literature. However, overall levels of concern over challenges/barriers were low, and challenges were more likely to be predicted than experienced and considered to be case/presentation specific. Challenges that were considered ASD-specific included the exacerbation of those associated with in-person delivery in ASD, alongside difficulties with trust and appropriate remote social behaviour. On average, clinicians indicated a preference for 50% TMH interventions post-pandemic. Clinicians' perceived technological competence and extent of professional experience with ASD were not significantly associated with levels of concern, nor number of experienced challenges, with TMH interventions in ASD. Conclusion: In support of the existing TMH literature, challenges/barriers were more likely to be predicted than experienced and were considered to be case/presentation-specific, though this may be more variable in ASD owing to the well-established marked heterogeneity in this population. Remote provision of interventions exacerbated in-person ASD-associated challenges, as predicted, but clinician-level factors appeared not to impact TMH perceptions.