Feasibility and acceptability of a telehealth model for autism diagnostic evaluations in children, adolescents, and adults.

This study examined the feasibility and acceptability of a telehealth diagnostic model deployed at an autism center in the southwestern United States to safely provide autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnostic evaluations to children, adolescents, and adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants included all clients for whom a telehealth diagnostic evaluation was scheduled at the diagnostic clinic (n = 121) over a 6-month period. Of 121 scheduled clients, 102 (84%) completed the telehealth evaluation. A diagnostic determination was made for 91% of clients (93 out of 102) using only telehealth procedures. Nine participants (two females; ages 3 to 11 years) required an in-person evaluation. Responses from psychologist and parent acceptability surveys indicated the model was acceptable for most clients. Psychologist ratings suggested that telehealth modalities used in the current study may be less acceptable for evaluating school-aged children with subtle presentations compared to children in the early developmental period, adolescents, and adults. Parents of females reported higher acceptability than parents of males. Findings contribute to the small but growing literature on feasibility and acceptability of telehealth evaluations for ASD and have implications for improving access to care during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. LAY SUMMARY: This study described telehealth methods for evaluating children, adolescents, and adults for autism spectrum disorder. Telehealth methods were generally acceptable to psychologists conducting the evaluations and parents of diagnostic clients. Psychologists reported the methods to be less acceptable for school-aged children and parents of males found the methods less acceptable than parents of females. The telehealth methods described may help to increase access to diagnostic professionals and reduce wait times for evaluations during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Beliefs about intellectual disability among employees at a state facility and undergraduate students: An exploratory analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals with intellectual disability are subject to stigmatization, even among those providing services to them. METHOD: Employees from an intermediate care facility (n = 97) and undergraduate students (n = 92) completed measures on their attitudes, beliefs of etiological causes and endorsement of helpful treatments and supports. RESULTS: Overall, participants reported few stigmatizing attitudes and high levels of support for interventions. Differences between employees and students emerged in regard to attitudes and causal beliefs, with employees reporting more support for sheltering and less endorsement of biomedical causes. Among students, those that reported knowing someone with intellectual disability reported less agreement with causal factors as well as differences in what supports were thought to be necessary or beneficial. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes and beliefs are interrelated and while familiarity impacts these views, it does not necessarily lead to greater understanding or endorsement of treatments or supports. The effects of familiarity on attitudes and beliefs should continue to be explored.