BackgroundResearch has shown high rates of suicidality in autism spectrum conditions (ASC), but there is lack of research into why this is the case. Many common experiences of autistic adults, such as depression or unemployment, overlap with known risk markers for suicide in the general population. However, it is unknown whether there are risk markers unique to ASC that require new tailored suicide prevention strategies.MethodsThrough consultation with a steering group of autistic adults, a survey was developed aiming to identify unique risk markers for suicidality in this group. The survey measured suicidality (SBQ-R), non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI-AT), mental health problems, unmet support needs, employment, satisfaction with living arrangements, self-reported autistic traits (AQ), delay in ASC diagnosis, and ‘camouflaging’ ASC. One hundred sixty-four autistic adults (65 male, 99 female) and 169 general population adults (54 males, 115 females) completed the survey online.ResultsA majority of autistic adults (72%) scored above the recommended psychiatric cut-off for suicide risk on the SBQ-R; significantly higher than general population (GP) adults (33%). After statistically controlling for a range of demographics and diagnoses, ASC diagnosis and self-reported autistic traits in the general population significantly predicted suicidality. In autistic adults, non-suicidal self-injury, camouflaging, and number of unmet support needs significantly predicted suicidality.ConclusionsResults confirm previously reported high rates of suicidality in ASC, and demonstrate that ASC diagnosis, and self-reported autistic traits in the general population are independent risk markers for suicidality. This suggests there are unique factors associated with autism and autistic traits that increase risk of suicidality. Camouflaging and unmet support needs appear to be risk markers for suicidality unique to ASC. Non-suicidal self-injury, employment, and mental health problems appear to be risk markers shared with the general population that are significantly more prevalent in the autistic community. Implications for understanding and prevention of suicide in ASC are discussed.
SummaryIn cost-utility analysis, the numbers of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained are aggregated according to the sum-ranking (or QALY maximisation) rule. This requires that the social value from health improvements is a simple product of gains in quality of life, length of life and the number of persons treated. The results from a systematic review of the literature suggest that QALY maximisation is descriptively flawed. Rather than being linear in quality and length of life, it would seem that social value diminishes in marginal increments of both. And rather than being neutral to the characteristics of people other than their propensity to generate QALYs, the social value of a health improvement seems to be higher if the person has worse lifetime health prospects and higher if that person has dependents. In addition, there is a desire to reduce inequalities in health. However, there are some uncertainties surrounding the results, particularly in relation to what might be affecting the responses, and there is the need for more studies of the general public that attempt to highlight the relative importance of various key factors. Copyright
Autistic people are at high risk of mental health problems, self-injury and suicidality. However, no studies have explored autistic peoples’ experiences of treatment and support for these difficulties. In partnership with a steering group of autistic adults, an online survey was developed to explore these individuals’ experiences of treatment and support for mental health problems, self-injury and suicidality for the first time. A total of 200 autistic adults (122 females, 77 males and 1 unreported) aged 18–67 (mean = 38.9 years, standard deviation = 11.5), without co-occurring intellectual disability, completed the online survey. Thematic analysis of open-ended questions resulted in an overarching theme that individually tailored treatment and support was both beneficial and desirable, which consisted of three underlying themes: (1) difficulties in accessing treatment and support; (2) lack of understanding and knowledge of autistic people with co-occurring mental health difficulties and (3) appropriate treatment and support, or lack of, impacted autistic people’s well-being and likelihood of seeing suicide as their future. Findings demonstrate an urgent need for autism treatment pathways in mental health services.
In this paper, we outline the three main concepts of 'ageism'; health maximisation ageism, productivity ageism, and fair innings ageism. We provide a methodological overview of the existing empirical literature on people's preferences regarding age and classify these studies according to the types of questions that have been asked. We consider some of the methodological issues involved in eliciting preferences regarding ageism and propose using a fixed duration of benefit rather than, as some studies have done, a benefit that lasts for a full lifetime. Informed by this discussion, we present the results from our own empirical study, carried out in the UK, which combines qualitative and quantitative methods to explore the reasons people have for choosing one age over another. In so doing, we are able to consider the extent to which respondents might bring extraneous factors to bear on their responses and/or disregard relevant information (such as that relating to the fixed nature of the benefit). The results suggest that people are broadly in favour of giving priority to younger over older people, based on arguments relating to both productivity ageism and fair innings ageism. However, respondents appear to assume that a benefit would last for a full lifetime (even if they are told to assume a fixed benefit), unless they are asked to consider a 'full-life' benefit first. This particular framing effect has important implications for preference elicitation studies, suggesting that if you want people to answer the question you have in mind, first ask them the question you think they may have in mind.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.