Parents’ and guardians’ experiences of barriers and facilitators in accessing autism spectrum disorder diagnostic services for their children: a qualitative systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this review were to comprehensively identify the best available qualitative evidence on parents' and guardians' experiences of barriers and facilitators in accessing autism spectrum disorder (ASD) diagnostic services for their children, and to develop recommendations based on the review for addressing barriers to timely diagnosis and early intervention. INTRODUCTION: Early identification of ASD is a priority because the best chance for improving symptoms occurs through early and intensive intervention. A definitive ASD diagnosis is often a prerequisite for children to access publicly funded services, yet obtaining a diagnosis in itself can be stressful, frustrating, and time-consuming for many families. It is essential to understand the barriers and facilitators parents and guardians face in accessing ASD diagnostic services for their children. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This qualitative systematic review considered studies conducted worldwide that included parents and guardians of children up to 18 years of age who had accessed or who were attempting to access ASD diagnostic services for their children. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. A literature search included CINAHL (EBSCOhost), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (EBSCOhost), APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Social Services Abstracts (ProQuest), ERIC (EBSCOhost), and Embase. Gray literature sources included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, Google, OpenGrey, other online resources (government and organizational websites), and reference lists of retrieved records. No language, date, or country limits were applied to the searches. Retrieved records from the academic databases, gray literature, and reference lists of retrieved records were screened, with potentially relevant records examined in full against the inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were critically appraised for methodological quality, and those included in this review were subjected to data extraction of descriptive details and study findings relevant to the review question. Study findings were synthesized and assigned confidence scores. All reviewers agreed upon the categories and finalized synthesized findings. RESULTS: The 36 included studies varied in qualitative research designs and were assessed as having high methodological quality. There were 661 eligible participants, and 55 credible and unequivocal research findings were extracted. The research findings yielded 6 categories and 3 synthesized findings with moderate confidence scores. Parents' and guardians' ability to access ASD diagnostic services for their children is affected by i) encountering health care providers who actively listened to and addressed parents' and guardians' concerns instead of dismissing them, providing a sense of support and validation; ii) facing extended waiting times and associated financial burdens, resulting in frustration and associated financial impact when delays occurred; and iii) encountering health care providers lacking specialized knowledge about ASD, contributing to parents' and guardians' confusion due to inaccurate or conflicting diagnoses related to ASD comorbidities. CONCLUSION: Many parents described their journey in accessing ASD assessment and diagnostic services for their children as cumbersome. Parents' and guardians' experiences were affected by the level of perceived support by and knowledge of health care providers; confusion surrounding inaccurate/mixed diagnoses related to ASD, lengthy delays, and systemic and contextual barriers in navigating the pathway to ASD assessment and diagnosis that included socioeconomic and cultural disparities. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018100127.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,020 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».