RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A hostile context, very limited intervention theory and almost no change in outcomes: findings from a systematic realist review of health passports for Autistic adults
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.12.04.22283076
DO 10.1101/2022.12.04.22283076
A1 Ellis, Rebecca
A1 Williams, Kathryn
A1 Brown, Amy
A1 Healer, Eleanor
A1 Grant, Aimee
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/12/05/2022.12.04.22283076.abstract
AB Background Autism 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.Methods We 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.Findings 162 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.Conclusion There 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.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementAG, KW, AB and EH received funding for this research from the Swansea University Accelerate Health Tech Centre (https://www.swansea.ac.uk/medicine/enterprise-and-innovation/business-support-projects/accelerate-healthcare-technology-centre/) Reference: 07/09/21. RE's time was funded by this grant. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.Not ApplicableThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The research was a systematic review of existing literature, and therefore did not need ethical approval.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.Not ApplicableI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).Not ApplicableI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.Not ApplicableThis study was a systematic review that did not produce any new data. Data collection forms are available on request from aimee.grant{at}swansea.ac.uk