SLPCase SeriesAutism : the international journal of research and practice2023

Short report: A co-designed psychoeducation for older autistic adults-a multiple case study.

E R Groenendijk, Bfc Van Heijst, H M Geurts

PMID 36519752

WHAT IT FOUND

A co-designed psychoeducation program for older autistic adults did not significantly reduce the difference in insight between participants and their proxies regarding autism traits or cognitive failures.

Most participants showed no reliable improvement on secondary outcomes, and the authors advise against implementation until the program is refined.

Key findings

01The program did not significantly improve mutual insight in autistic traits, with no difference in discrepancy scores between baseline and intervention phases.

02The program did not significantly improve mutual insight in cognitive challenges, though the statistical evidence for no effect was considered undecided.

03Only one of the nine participants showed reliable improvement on at least half of the secondary outcome measures.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat 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.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The study included only nine participants, resulting in very low statistical power and a high risk of false negatives. Treatment fidelity was not assessed, so it is unclear if the program was delivered consistently across groups. The sample was heavily skewed towards males, with only one female participant. Participants reported that the weekly questionnaire and assignment workload was heavy, which may have reduced engagement and reflection time.

Declared interests

Two of the authors developed the psychoeducation program being tested. The study was funded by ZonMw and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research.

The easy way to misread this

Do not interpret the participants' moderate satisfaction scores as evidence that the program works. The primary outcomes showed no significant improvement in mutual insight, and the authors explicitly state the program should not be implemented yet.

Read it on PubMed →