Influenced by theories of intersectionality, performativity and gender hegemony, this review sought to explore the intersection of autism and gender in qualitative research into autistic identity. Twelve papers were subjected to a thematic metasynthesis following a systematic search. Study participants were predominantly cisgender female or gender-diverse: perspectives of cisgender autistic males were lacking. The three superordinate themes developed related to: (1) the ways in which autism discourses restricted gender identities, through the influence of the “extreme male brain” and “masking” narratives and the use of autism to explain gender non-conformity and gender diversity; (2) the ways in which gendered autistic identities were positioned within social power hierarchies as “othered”, subordinate and less acceptable ways of being; and (3) possibilities for finding spaces of belonging and resistance. While autism as an identity may offer community and freedom from normative expectations, dominant autism discourses act to restrict and police gender, reinforcing existing power hierarchies. We encourage practitioners to reflect on the clinical, ethical and political implications of their positioning in relation to the constructs of “autism” and “gender”, and to explore alongside people seeking support the personal and political impacts of gendered autism discourses.

This article reports findings from a service evaluation involving interviews with 16 young people under the care of a single specialist child and adolescent mental health services team in the NHS in England. The team serves various 'vulnerable' population groups, including children and young people living in residential and foster care, who are adopted, and who are involved with youth justice services. The evaluation was concerned with how the shift from face-to-face to remote forms of care and new ways of working during the COVID-19 pandemic has been experienced. The young people's accounts highlight how differences in provision were mostly anticipated. This interlinked with a high level of satisfaction with the service overall. The therapeutic relationship with the case-holding clinician appeared to hold a renewed significance when care was delivered remotely or through a combination of remote and face-to-face delivery. The article concludes by considering the implications of the findings for practice and care pathway planning and with some brief comments on the value of service evaluations for illuminating issues that transcend local care.

Social interaction and loneliness have received much research interest. However, the direction of their relationship is unclear—does social interaction shape loneliness, or does loneliness shape willingness to interact? We explored dynamics of these social experiences under exceptional circumstances: COVID-19 lockdowns, which were necessary for public health but impacted people’s social lives. Specifically, we investigated the relationship between social interaction and loneliness in and out of lockdown in Australia. We used experience sampling methodology to follow 233 people across one week (Mage=30; 8,495 surveys) in a period that spanned one of the longest lockdowns in the world. While loneliness did not predict subsequent social interaction, having a social interaction predicted lower subsequent loneliness, particularly in (vs. out of) lockdown. These findings suggest social interactions may limit loneliness, especially during physical isolation. In short, times when we are apart from others may be times we benefit from interacting with them most.

No abstract