Missed Early Intervention Opportunities for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Daniel E Lidstone
PMID 40237135WHAT IT FOUND
Only 15% of preschoolers with autism received early intervention services before age 2.
The strongest predictor of timely access was an autism diagnosis before age 2, alongside higher socioeconomic status and low birth weight. Most children missed the critical window due to diagnostic delays.
Key findings
01Only 15% of the 478 preschool children with ASD received early intervention services by age 2.
02Having an ASD diagnosis prior to age 2 was the strongest predictor of receiving early intervention before age 2, increasing the likelihood by more than threefold.
03Higher socioeconomic status (family poverty index > 200%) and low birth weight (< 2500 g) were also significant predictors of receiving early intervention before age 2.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat 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
The study used cross-sectional data, so it cannot prove that these factors caused the delay in receiving services. Data was parent-reported, which introduces the risk of recall bias regarding when services started. The analysis excluded children with missing data for key variables like income and race, which may limit generalizability. The study did not account for the quality, intensity, or type of intervention received, only the timing of the plan's initiation. State-specific eligibility criteria for early intervention vary widely, which complicates the interpretation of predictors like low birth weight.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the association between low birth weight or high socioeconomic status and early intervention receipt as evidence that these factors improve clinical outcomes. The study only measured access to services, not the effectiveness or quality of those services.