Clinician Perspectives on Telehealth Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorder During the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Elizabeth M Kryszak, Charles M Albright, Lucy A Fell and 2 others
PMID 35103899WHAT IT FOUND
Clinicians reported telehealth worked well for interviews and clear-cut cases but lacked confidence in diagnosing subtle symptoms or older children via video.
Home observations offered richer behavioral data, though technology barriers and interpreter difficulties remained significant challenges.
Key findings
01Most clinicians felt satisfied with telehealth services, particularly when supported by leadership and strong technology infrastructure.
02Telehealth was considered viable for clinical interviews and feedback, but confidence in using it for final diagnosis varied significantly, with older children and those with subtle deficits being harder to assess.
03Observing children in their home environment provided more naturalistic data than clinic settings, though safety issues like abuse or suicidality were difficult to assess remotely.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Participants were from academic medical centers, so findings may not apply to community clinics. The sample was self-selected, which may bias results toward clinicians more open to telehealth. The study reports clinician perceptions and experiences, not objective diagnostic accuracy or patient outcomes. It is a qualitative study, so the findings cannot be generalized to all clinicians or settings.
Declared interests
The study was funded by Autism Speaks. No other conflicts of interest were reported.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret clinician satisfaction or perceived viability as evidence that telehealth assessment is diagnostically equivalent to in-person evaluation. The study reports experiences and confidence levels, not validated diagnostic accuracy, and highlights significant limitations for assessing subtle symptoms and safety.