Back

Two Sides of the Spectrum: A Cross-Sectional Study of Autism Diagnosis and Treatment in Kazakhstan from the Perspectives of Parents and Physicians

Foster, F.; Kanderzhanova, A.; Tolegenova, A.; Colet, P.; Stolyarova, V.; Noble, G.; Tazhibay, M.

2025-05-25 public and global health
10.1101/2025.05.25.25328295 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundEarly diagnosis and intervention for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are associated with improved outcomes, but access remains uneven in many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Kazakhstan has seen increasing awareness of ASD, yet systemic challenges in diagnosis and care persist. ObjectiveTo compare the perspectives of parents and physicians regarding the diagnosis, treatment, and post-diagnostic support of children with autism in Kazakhstan. MethodsA cross-sectional, mixed-methods survey was conducted with 190 parents and 110 physicians across Kazakhstan. Structured questionnaires assessed early symptom recognition, diagnostic experiences, treatment practices, training needs, and beliefs about autism. ResultsWhile 76.6% of parents identified concerns before age three, diagnostic delays were common, and follow-up support was inconsistent. Physicians reported confidence in early identification (86.7%) but low use of standardized tools (26.7%). Notably, 30.0% believed autism could be outgrown with proper treatment, and 36.7% viewed ASD as having a poor prognosis even with early intervention. Nearly half of parents (46.8%) reported being advised to pursue pharmacologic treatment, often in the absence of behavioural therapy. Both groups identified training gaps, limited access to services, and fragmented care coordination as persistent challenges. ConclusionThis dual-perspective study highlights ongoing systemic and perceptual barriers to autism care in Kazakhstan. Addressing misconceptions among clinicians, expanding evidence-based training, and strengthening diagnostic and therapeutic infrastructure are critical for improving outcomes and aligning national practices with global standards.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 16%
12.4%
2
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.4%
3
JAMA Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
4
npj Genomic Medicine
33 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.3%
5
Frontiers in Psychiatry
83 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.9%
6
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
4.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Psychiatry Research
35 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.0%
8
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
9
BMC Public Health
147 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.3%
10
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.1%
11
BMC Psychiatry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
12
Autism Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
13
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
14
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
15
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 66%
1.2%
16
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
17
Frontiers in Pediatrics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
18
The British Journal of Psychiatry
21 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
19
Molecular Autism
29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
20
Translational Psychiatry
219 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
21
Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
22
Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
23
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
24
Biology of Sex Differences
29 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
25
Environmental Research
46 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
Pediatrics
10 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.6%