Search

Objectives Many jurisdictions across Canada and internationally are grappling with providing diagnostic and intervention services for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The objective was to compare Canadian and United Kingdom (UK) policies governing ASD diagnosis. Methods The policy scan extended from January 2000 to December 2017. Canadian federal, provincial/territorial, and UK government publications related to ASD diagnosis were retrieved from official websites by searching for ASD and related terms. Retrieved documents were filtered for relevance, with all relevant documents undergoing full text review. Data extracted included personnel and testing requirements for diagnosis, wait times, and eligibility for ASD services and funding. Results The included jurisdictions varied substantially in their approach to ASD diagnosis and eligibility for intervention. Nine of the 13 provinces/territories restrict which clinicians can diagnose ASD by requiring certain documentation for service eligibility. Three provinces require multi-disciplinary team assessment (British Columbia [BC], Quebec, and Nova Scotia [NS]). Three provinces (BC, NS, and Prince Edward Island [PEI]) require specific diagnostic tests for diagnosis. Only two provinces, BC and NS, have target wait times for assessment. Jurisdictions differed in whether they allowed children with a provisional diagnosis of ASD to access services. At a national level, the UK provides more clinical guidance for ASD diagnosis, which can be attributed to its centralized system of national healthcare delivery. Conclusions ASD diagnostic assessment policies vary across Canada, and between Canada and the UK. Further evidence supporting ASD diagnostic practices is needed to streamline the journey from identification to intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical guidance documents play an important role in ensuring access to high-quality autism spectrum disorder diagnostic assessment practices. The objective was to perform a systematic review of professional association and government clinical guidance documents for autism spectrum disorder diagnostic assessment, analyzing their quality and content. The government search was limited to English-speaking, single-payer, publicly funded health systems. A quality appraisal was conducted by two appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation, second edition tool. A content analysis was conducted for recommended clinical personnel and psychometric tools. The 11 documents demonstrated higher quality in Scope and Purpose (mean: 90.1, standard deviation: 7.4) and Clarity of Presentation (mean: 82.8, standard deviation: 9.4) and lower quality in Applicability (mean: 43.3, standard deviation: 23.8) and Rigor of Development (mean: 52, standard deviation: 21.9). All documents either recommended multidisciplinary team assessment or stated it was ideal. The documents varied substantially in their recommended tools and personnel for diagnostic assessment. There was little supporting evidence for team and personnel recommendations. Multiple guidance documents exist for autism spectrum disorder diagnostic assessments, with varying quality and recommendations. The substantial variation likely stems from insufficient evidence supporting assessment practices. Research is required to close the evidence gaps and inform high-quality clinical guidelines.