Misinformation poses significant challenges to evidence-based practice. In the public health domain specifically, treatment misinformation can lead to opportunity costs or direct harm. Alas, attempts to debunk misinformation have proven sub-optimal, and have even been shown to “backfire”, including increasing misperceptions. Thus, optimized debunking strategies have been developed to more effectively combat misinformation. The aim of this study was to test these strategies in a real-world setting, targeting misinformation about autism interventions. In the context of professional development training, we randomly assigned participants to an “optimized-debunking” or a “treatment-as-usual” training condition and compared support for non-empirically-supported treatments before, after, and six weeks following completion of online training. Results demonstrated greater benefits of optimized debunking immediately after training; thus, the implemented strategies can serve as a general and flexible debunking template. However, the effect was not sustained at follow-up, highlighting the need for further research into strategies for sustained change.

Misinformation poses significant challenges to evidence-based practice. In the public health domain specifically, treatment misinformation can lead to opportunity costs or direct harm. Alas, attempts to debunk misinformation have proven sub-optimal, and have even been shown to “backfire”, including increasing misperceptions. Thus, optimized debunking strategies have been developed to more effectively combat misinformation. The aim of this study was to test these strategies in a real-world setting, targeting misinformation about autism interventions. In the context of professional development training, we randomly assigned participants to an “optimized-debunking” or a “treatment-as-usual” training condition and compared support for non-empirically-supported treatments before, after, and six weeks following completion of online training. Results demonstrated greater benefits of optimized debunking immediately after training; thus, the implemented strategies can serve as a general and flexible debunking template. However, the effect was not sustained at follow-up, highlighting the need for further research into strategies for sustained change.

Allied health professionals (AHPs) are trusted sources of information and intervention for clients with autism spectrum disorder. However, the level of implementation of empirically-supported therapies and the accuracy of the knowledge they use to inform intervention selection is largely unknown. The present study explored the accuracy of AHPs' knowledge and use of practices, and explored links to individual attitudes and organisational culture. Overall results from the 156 AHPs surveyed suggested general accuracy of knowledge, and use of empirically supported treatments, with accuracy linked to use. Use of practices unsupported by research was linked to organisational culture and openness to new interventions. The presence of misinformation and the impact on selection and use of effective practices are discussed.

No abstract

Use of empirically unsupported practices is a challenge in the field of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We explored whether attitudes and perceived evidence were linked to intended practice use in early intervention staff. Seventy-one participants completed ratings of the evidence base, current and future use of six ASD intervention practices, and reported attitudes to research and evidence-based practice. Participants reported greater use and rated the evidence base higher for the empirically supported practices. However, variability in accuracy of evidence base ratings was observed across individuals. Higher perceived evidence was linked to greater future use intentions for empirically supported and unsupported practices. The need for accurate information across practice types is highlighted. Self-report methodology limitations and future research directions are discussed.