Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2022
Expert consensus regarding indicators of a traumatic reaction in autistic youth: a Delphi survey.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаConsensus StatementНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kerns Connor M, Robins Diana L, Shattuck Paul T, Newschaffer Craig J, Berkowitz Steven J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: It has been suggested that the sequelae of trauma are under-recognized in youth on the autism spectrum. We aimed to generate expert consensus regarding important trauma indicators, including but not limited to traumatic stress symptoms, in autistic youth.
METHODS: We recruited 72 experts in autism and/or childhood trauma. Via a 2-round Delphi survey, experts commented on and rated the importance of 48 potential indicators, drawn from PTSD criteria and a broader literature on traumatic sequelae in autism. A revised list of 51 indicators, 18 clinical guidelines developed from expert comments, and summaries of expert qualifications and ratings from Round 1 were submitted to a second round (n = 66; 92% retention) of expert review and rating.
RESULTS: Twenty-two indicators reached consensus (>75% round 2 endorsement). Many, but not all, reflected PTSD criteria, including intrusions (e.g., trauma re-enactments in perseverative play/speech), avoidance of trauma-reminders, and negative alterations in mood/cognition (e.g., diminished interest in activities) and in arousal/reactivity (e.g., exaggerated startle). Experts also identified increased reliance on others, adaptive and language regressions, self-injurious behavior, and non-suicidal self-injury as important indicators. Consensus guidelines emphasized the need for tailored measures, developmentally informed criteria, and multiple informants to increase diagnostic accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus emphasizes and informs a need for tailored diagnostic guidelines and measures to more sensitively assess traumatic reactions in autistic youth.
METHODS: We recruited 72 experts in autism and/or childhood trauma. Via a 2-round Delphi survey, experts commented on and rated the importance of 48 potential indicators, drawn from PTSD criteria and a broader literature on traumatic sequelae in autism. A revised list of 51 indicators, 18 clinical guidelines developed from expert comments, and summaries of expert qualifications and ratings from Round 1 were submitted to a second round (n = 66; 92% retention) of expert review and rating.
RESULTS: Twenty-two indicators reached consensus (>75% round 2 endorsement). Many, but not all, reflected PTSD criteria, including intrusions (e.g., trauma re-enactments in perseverative play/speech), avoidance of trauma-reminders, and negative alterations in mood/cognition (e.g., diminished interest in activities) and in arousal/reactivity (e.g., exaggerated startle). Experts also identified increased reliance on others, adaptive and language regressions, self-injurious behavior, and non-suicidal self-injury as important indicators. Consensus guidelines emphasized the need for tailored measures, developmentally informed criteria, and multiple informants to increase diagnostic accuracy.
CONCLUSIONS: Expert consensus emphasizes and informs a need for tailored diagnostic guidelines and measures to more sensitively assess traumatic reactions in autistic youth.