.png){kind=icon}
.png){kind=icon}
Return
From Waiting to Action: Why the Autism Field Must Embrace Efficient Service Delivery Models for Diagnostic Assessment
.png){kind=icon}
PRE
AI
A
A
B
L
J
P
S
G
D
DOI：10.1177/13623613261474938.png)
.png){kind=icon}
Original request for help.png){kind=icon}
Share.png){kind=icon}
Save
Abstract
En 中文
<jats:p>Waiting lists for an autism evaluation delay timely diagnosis and entry into autism-specific early intervention. To solve this crisis, our field must increase capacity by embracing efficient diagnostic processes. Traditional diagnostic pathways involve complex evaluations and rely on a highly trained but limited pool of specialists, which elongate wait times. Evidence suggests that emerging approaches, including telehealth assessments, primary care diagnosis, and tiered models, reduce barriers. We guide readers through five core issues critical to updating the standard of care for early autism assessment: (1) What are the consequences of maintaining the status quo? (2) What do families prioritize? (3) What evidence supports efficient diagnostic models? (4) What are the consequences of reducing accuracy? and (5) What level of assessment depth is needed to inform action? Our team contends that the critical advantages of adopting efficient service delivery models far outweigh the disadvantages. Collaboration across disciplines, and trust in families’ insights, will help build capacity. We conclude with actionable recommendations for clinicians and policymakers in support of adopting these models.</jats:p>
<jats:sec>
<jats:title>Lay Abstract</jats:title>
<jats:p>The growing demand for autism diagnostic services has outpaced available resources. This creates significant delays in first diagnosis and entry into early intervention services (early diagnosis and intervention improve outcomes). Expert diagnosticians in the field have debated – and tested – streamlined and flexible alternative diagnostic processes to speed up access to services; we believe that the advantages of such approaches outweigh the disadvantages, and that evidence supports updating our current standards.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>
Journal
IF:
5.6
Papers:
2.8K
Citations:
1.3W
Organization
Cited Papers