Back

A hostile context, very limited intervention theory and almost no change in outcomes: findings from a realist review of health passports for Autistic adults

Ellis, R.; Williams, K.; Brown, A.; Healer, E.; Grant, A.

2022-12-05 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2022.12.04.22283076 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundAutism is a normal part of cognitive diversity, resulting in communication and sensory processing differences, which can become disabling in a neurotypical world. Autistic people have an increased likelihood of physical and mental co-occurring conditions and die earlier than neurotypical peers. Inaccessible healthcare may contribute to this. Autism Health Passports (AHPs) are paper-based or digital tools which can be used to describe healthcare accessibility needs; they are recommended in UK clinical guidance. However, questions remained as to the theoretical underpinnings and effectiveness of AHPs. MethodsWe undertook a systematic literature search identifying studies focused on AHPs for adults (aged over 16 years) from five databases. Included literature was subjected to realist evaluation. Data were extracted using a standardised form, developed by the research team, which considered research design, study quality for realist review and the Context, Mechanisms and Outcomes (CMOs) associated with each AHP tool. Findings162 unique records were identified, and 13 items were included in the review. Only one item was considered high quality. Contextual factors focused on the inaccessibility of healthcare to Autistic patients and staff lack of confidence and training in supporting Autistic needs. Interventions were heterogeneous, with most sources reporting few details as to how they had been developed. The most frequently included contents were communication preferences. Mechanisms were often not stated or were inferred by the reviewers and lacked specificity. Outcomes were included in four studies and were primarily focused on AHP uptake, rather than Outcomes which measured impact. ConclusionThere is insufficient evidence to conclude that AHPs reduce the health inequalities experienced by Autistic people. Using an AHP tool alone, without the inclusion of the local Autistic community developing the tool, and a wider intervention, such as training for staff or the use of local champions, may mean that AHPs do not trigger any Mechanisms, and thus cannot affect Outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
23.8%
2
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.7%
3
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.7%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 21%
8.9%
50% of probability mass above
5
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.2%
6
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
7
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.5%
8
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.0%
9
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
10
Emergency Medicine Journal
20 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.4%
11
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
12
Trials
25 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.4%
13
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
14
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.3%
15
British Journal of General Practice
22 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
16
JAMA Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
17
Epilepsy & Behavior
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
18
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
Archives of Disease in Childhood
15 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
20
Journal of Medical Genetics
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
21
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
22
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
23
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%
24
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%
25
Autism Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
26
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 79%
0.5%
27
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
28
Molecular Autism
29 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%