Neurodiversity and Autism Intervention: Reconciling Perspectives Through a Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Intervention Framework

Proponents of autism intervention and those of the neurodiversity movement often appear at odds, the former advocating for intensive treatments and the latter arguing that autism must be accepted as a form of diversity. The history of behavioral intervention has understandably outraged many in the Autistic community, though many still value supports focused on quality of life. This commentary argues that Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions (NDBIs) hold promise for bridging the gap between early intervention and the neurodiversity movement. However, we recognize NDBIs have much room to grow and suggest multiple strategies for improvement. We believe these updates are not only feasible for clinicians and researchers to implement but will ultimately lead to improved quality of life for Autistic individuals.

Autistic Self-Advocacy and the Neurodiversity Movement: Implications for Autism Early Intervention Research and Practice

The growth of autistic self-advocacy and the neurodiversity movement has brought about new ethical, theoretical and ideological debates within autism theory, research and practice. These debates have had genuine impact within some areas of autism research but their influence is less evident within early intervention research. In this paper, we argue that all autism intervention stakeholders need to understand and actively engage with the views of autistic people and with neurodiversity as a concept and movement. In so doing, intervention researchers and practitioners are required to move away from a normative agenda and pay diligence to environmental goodness-of-fit, autistic developmental trajectories, internal drivers and experiences, and autistic prioritized intervention targets. Autism intervention researchers must respond to these debates by reframing effectiveness, developing tools to measure autistic prioritized outcomes, and forming partnerships with autistic people. There is a pressing need for increased reflection and articulation around how intervention practices align with a neurodiversity framework and greater emphasis within intervention programmes on natural developmental processes, coping strategies, autonomy, and well-being.

Adverse event reporting in intervention research for young autistic children

Our team examined 150 reports on group-design, non-pharmacological interventions for young autistic children, to determine the prevalence of adverse event reporting. We found that only 11 studies mentioned adverse events; one indicated adverse events occurred, and an additional three indicated adverse effects occurred (i.e. adverse events that could be attributed to the intervention). We also coded reasons for participant withdrawal and found that of the 54 studies that reported reasons for withdrawal, 10 studies reported reasons that could be categorized as adverse events, 8 reported reasons that could be categorized as adverse effects, and an additional 12 studies reported reasons that were too vaguely described to determine adverse event status. We recommend that autism intervention researchers make concerted efforts to monitor, classify, and report adverse events so that practitioners, policy-makers, and families are better equipped to weigh potential benefits of interventions against potential harms. Lay abstract In this study, we looked at published research on interventions for young autistic children that did not involve administering medication. We were interested in determining how often studies reported on whether adverse events (i.e. physical or psychological distress to the participants) or adverse effects (i.e. adverse events that are thought to be caused by the intervention) had occurred. We found that of the 150 reports we examined, only 11 mentioned adverse events. One of these studies reported adverse events occurred, and three reported that adverse effects occurred. We also reviewed the studies to examine the reasons that were given to explain why any participants dropped out of the intervention (termed “withdrawal”), to determine if any of these reasons could be considered adverse events or adverse effects. Fifty-four studies described reasons for withdrawal, and 10 of these studies had reasons that could be categorized as an adverse event, 8 studies had reasons that could be categorized as an adverse effect, and an additional 12 studies had reasons that were too vaguely described to determine whether they were adverse events or not. We recommend that autism intervention researchers develop more systematic methods of looking for and reporting adverse events and effects, so that professionals and families can be better informed when choosing to enroll their autistic children in interventions.