Brief Report: Training New Zealand Well Child/Tamariki Ora Nurses on Early Autism Signs Using the Social Attention and Communication Surveillance-Revised.

There was no comparison group, so changes cannot be separated from normal time, maturation, or other events. Only 56 of the 175 analysed nurses completed follow-up, a 32% response rate, which may make follow-up results less reliable. Follow-up timing differed between sites, 3 months in Wellington and 8 months in Auckland, although scores did not differ significantly between locations. The knowledge of early signs subscale could not be used for the Wellington group, so that finding rests on Auckland data only. Outcomes were self-reported knowledge, confidence, and acceptability, not actual identification accuracy, referral rates, or effects on children and families. Some missing survey responses were imputed; 24 participants had at least one imputed score. Acceptability was not measured before the workshop, so its change could only be tracked from post-workshop to follow-up. The workshop combined several elements, including PowerPoint slides, videos, handouts, group tasks, SACS-R checklist practice, and local clinician or Autism NZ referral input, so the effect of any single component is unclear.

The supplied text names funders as Victoria University of Wellington and Auckland University of Technology; it does not include a separate author conflict declaration.

Do not read the knowledge and confidence gains as proof that SACS-R training causes better autism identification. The study had no comparison group, outcomes were nurse-reported, and the workshop also included PowerPoint slides, videos, handouts, group tasks, SACS-R checklist practice, and referral information from local clinicians and Autism NZ representatives, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated. It also did not measure referral rates or child outcomes.