Use of early intervention for young children with autism ...

Page 1

Autism 1 –17© The Author(s) 2015Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1362361315577218aut.sagepub.com

Use of early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder across Europe

Erica Salomone1, Štěpánka Beranová2, Frédérique Bonnet-Brilhault3, Marlene Briciet Lauritsen4, Magdalena Budisteanu5, Jan Buitelaar6, Ricardo Canal-Bedia7, Gabriella Felhosi8, Sue Fletcher-Watson9, Christine Freitag10, Joaquin Fuentes11, Louise Gallagher12, Patricia Garcia Primo13, Fotinica Gliga14, Marie Gomot3, Jonathan Green15, Mikael Heimann16, Sigridur Loa Jónsdóttir17, Anett Kaale18, Rafal Kawa19, Anneli Kylliainen20, Sanne Lemcke4, Silvana Markovska-Simoska21, Peter B Marschik22, Helen McConachie23, Irma Moilanen24, Filippo Muratori25, Antonio Narzisi25, Michele Noterdaeme26, Guiomar Oliveira27, Iris Oosterling6, Mirjam Pijl6, Nada Pop-Jordanova21, Luise Poustka28, Herbert Roeyers29, Bernadette Rogé30, Judith Sinzig31, Astrid Vicente32, Petra Warreyn29 and Tony Charman1

AbstractLittle is known about use of early interventions for autism spectrum disorder in Europe. Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder aged 7  years or younger (N  =  1680) were recruited through parent organisations in 18 European countries and completed an online survey about the interventions their child received. There was considerable variation in use of interventions, and in some countries more than 20% of children received no intervention at all. The most frequently reported interventions were speech and language therapy (64%) and behavioural, developmental and relationship-based interventions (55%). In some parts of Europe, use of behavioural, developmental and relationship-based interventions was associated with higher parental educational level and time passed since diagnosis, rather than

1King’s College London, UK 2Charles University and University Hospital Motol, Czech Republic 3Université François Rabelais de Tours, France 4Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark 5Titu Maiorescu University, Romania 6Radboud University, The Netherlands 7Universidad de Salamanca, Spain 8Budapest and Kispest Child Mental Health Institute, Hungary 9University of Edinburgh, UK10Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main, Germany11Policlinica Gipuzkoa, Spain12Trinity College Dublin, Ireland13 Rare Diseases Research Institute (IIER) of the National Institute of

Health of Spain (IIER-NIH Carlos III), Spain14University of Bucharest, Romania15Booth Hall Children’s Hospital, UK16Linköping University, Sweden17State Diagnostic and Counselling Centre, Iceland18Oslo University Hospital, Norway

577218 AUT0010.1177/1362361315577218Autism X(X)Salomone et al.research-article2015

Original Article

19University of Warsaw, Poland20University of Tampere, Finland21Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Macedonia22Medical University of Graz, Austria23Newcastle University, UK24Oulu University Hospital and University of Oulu, Finland25IRCCS Stella Maris Foundation, Italy26Josefinum, Germany27Centro Hospitalar e Universitário de Coimbra, Portugal28University of Heidelberg, Germany29Ghent University, Belgium30Université de Toulouse – Le Mirail, France31LVR-Klinik Bonn, Germany32Instituto Nacional de Saúde Doutor Ricardo Jorge, Portugal

Corresponding author:Erica Salomone, Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London, 16 De Crespigny Park, London SE5 9AF, UK.Email: [email protected]

Page 2

2 Autism

with child characteristics. These findings highlight the need to monitor use of intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder in Europe in order to contrast inequalities.

Keywordsautism, Europe, intervention, use of early intervention

Introduction

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD), characterised by impaired social communication and interaction and by restrictive patterns of behaviours and interests, affects approximately 1% of children (Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Surveillance Year 2010 Principal Investigators; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 2014; Baird et al., 2006). Cognitive impairment, psychiatric disorders and behavioural prob-lems commonly co-occur with ASD (Lai et al., 2014). The complexity of the clinical presentation therefore requires early and appropriate intervention to promote positive out-comes for children and families.

There is a growing body of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which best protect against bias, reporting promising results of the efficacy of early and intensive behavioural intervention (see reviews Narzisi et al., 2013; Warren et al., 2011) as well as of developmental or relationship-based interventions delivered by therapists or teachers (Dawson et al., 2010; Kaale et al., 2012; Landa et al., 2011; Pajareya and Nopmaneejumruslers, 2011) and parents (Green et al., 2010; Kasari et al., 2014; for a meta-analysis, see Oono et al., 2013). A number of countries in Europe have acknowledged these encouraging findings and recommend early intervention within national guidelines for autism (among others, France: Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS), 2012; United Kingdom: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2013; The Netherlands: Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN), 2009). However, little is known about the actual use of ASD-related inter-ventions in communities across Europe.

Several studies have reported on the use of intervention for young children in many countries, such as in the United Kingdom (Barrett et al., 2012; Cassidy et al., 2008), France (Rattaz et al., 2012), Israel (Raz et al., 2013) and the United States (Ruble and McGrew, 2007; Thomas et al., 2007b). However, because of the different focus of these studies (service costs, parental satisfaction, out-of-pocket expend-iture) or the characteristics of the research site (e.g. a pre-dominantly TEACCH-oriented State), comparison of intervention use across countries is difficult. This is due to several reasons: parents were sometimes asked about con-tacts with various professionals rather than about the use of different types of intervention; they were not systemati-cally asked about all possible approaches or the samples are unlikely to be representative of the wider community.

Three American groups conducted surveys of use of inter-vention that included respondents from other countries; however, the vast majority of participants were US resi-dents (Bowker et al., 2011; Goin-Kochel et al., 2007; Green et al., 2006). The Green et al. (2006) study reached 552 families through the Autism Society of America chap-ter branches and found that families used on average seven different interventions, and while speech and language therapy was the most commonly reported intervention, the number of therapies used varied as a function of the child’s age and severity of disability within the autism spectrum. The Goin-Kochel et al. (2007) study replicated these find-ings on another sample (N = 479) recruited via similar routes. In the Bowker et al. (2011) study (n = 970), inter-ventions based on ABA approaches were the most com-monly reported interventions (37%), followed by ‘physiological interventions’ (including, for example, sen-sory integration and occupational therapy) and by speech and language therapy, music therapy and osteopathy, grouped by the authors in a ‘standard therapies’ category.

While these studies provide some information on the use of interventions for children with ASD in Northern America, a comprehensive description of use of interven-tion in Europe is lacking. Moreover, in all studies, except the two British studies and the Goin-Kochel et al. (2007) study, data for pre-schoolers were not separated out when children older than 7 years were included in the sample; this makes the interpretation of the findings difficult as the needs of children and young people with ASD change with development.

A separate but related issue is that of child and family factors associated with use of intervention, as we know that parents often report difficulties in identifying and accessing relevant services and professionals (Siklos and Kerns, 2006). Previous research in the United States has found that ethnicity and parental educational level were significant predictors of receiving an early diagnosis (Mandell et al., 2009; Shattuck et al., 2009) and accessing services (Liptak et al., 2008; Thomas et al., 2007a); however, differences in service use by ethnicity or parental education were not found in the United Kingdom (Barrett et al., 2012; Cassidy et al., 2008) and not analysed in the French study (Rattaz et al., 2012). Parents with a higher income and educational level may be better equipped to know about, advocate for and access interventions for ASD.

Page 3

Salomone et al. 3

To promote strategies and mechanisms to collect and exchange information on ASD in Europe, the European Commission specifically included ASD in its 2003–2008 and subsequent public-health work plans (EU, 2007). With a similar aim, in 2010, the European Science Foundation funded the Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST)1 Action ‘Enhancing the Scientific Study of Early Autism (ESSEA)’ network, composed of over 80 scientists from 23 European countries. The COST-ESSEA network had the objective to advance the pace of discovery about the earliest signs of autism (for example, studying infants at risk: Bölte et al., 2013), to combine techniques from cognitive neuroscience with those from the clinical sci-ences and to review the state of art of early identification (García-Primo et al., 2014) and intervention (McConachie et al., 2014) practices in Europe (Appendix 1).

Obtaining a detailed picture of amount and type of intervention received in Europe is important to inform the decisions of policy makers, both at a national and European level, in relation to funding of services and training of pro-fessionals. This study therefore used the ESSEA network to conduct a multi-country survey on use of early interven-tion for children with ASD across Europe. In order to enquire about a more homogeneous set of services, the age limit for inclusion in the study was set at 7 years, as by that age most children in Europe have started school.

Our aim was to describe the current use of behavioural, developmental and psychosocial intervention for children with ASD aged 7 or younger in 20 European countries. Specifically, our objectives were (a) to examine whether the type and amount of intervention received was a func-tion of area of residency in Europe and (b) to examine whether child characteristics (age, gender, verbal ability), time since diagnosis and parental educational level were associated with use of intervention, both at a European and a regional level.

Methods

Ethical approval was given by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Children and Learning, Institute of Education, London, UK. Parents provided informed con-sent before completing the survey (IOE/FPS 385).

Survey development

The survey, which asked about current use of intervention (type and number of hours per week) received at home, school and clinic, was developed over three phases each involving iterations within the COST-ESSEA interna-tional network. Initially, a list of interventions, therapy approaches and aids was drawn from previous literature (Green et al., 2006) and existing autism-related web resources (Research Autism: http://www.researchautism.net/autism-interventions/alphabetic-list-interventions).

Subsequently, branded interventions not available in Europe (e.g. Giant Steps) were dropped. In this phase, it was acknowledged that therapy programmes with a very similar background are available with different names in different countries and also that parents are not always aware of the theoretical approach underlying a specific programme. Therefore, each question about a broader cat-egory of interventions (e.g. ‘Is your child currently receiv-ing a behavioural intervention?’) was always accompanied by examples of specific programmes that could have been more familiar to the parent (e.g. ‘Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA)’, ‘Pivotal Response Training (PRT)’). The examples were specific, when possible, to each coun-try. Finally, a question about using ‘other interventions’ was included in the survey to ensure capturing other less-defined approaches not included in the other categories mentioned. Parents were then asked to specify the nature of the intervention by selecting one or more descriptions (‘other educational intervention’, ‘other psychological intervention’, ‘social skills training’, ‘other type’) or the option ‘I don’t know’. For each type of intervention in the survey, parents were asked to report the number of hours of intervention their child/they currently received per week. Parents were explicitly asked to consider all set-tings where the child received the treatment and to report on all sessions delivered at home, in clinics or in school. The total hours of school attendance were not collected. A section on use of medication and complementary and alternative medicine, not considered for this study, was also included in the questionnaire (see Salomone et al., in press).

To take part in the survey, parents had to answer ‘yes’ to the question ‘Has your child received any of the following diagnoses?’ followed by a listing of all diagnostic catego-ries for ASD in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR) and 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), which were the diagnostic manuals in use in Europe at the time of the study. General background information on respondents was also gathered: relationship to child (mother/father/other) and educational level (below high-school diploma, high-school diploma, bachelor, master/post-graduate). The educational level was collapsed for analysis into the fol-lowing two categories: low educational level (up to high-school diploma) and high educational level (bachelor and master/post-graduate). To comply with the relevant legis-lation on cross-national sharing of sensitive personal data in some of the participating countries, parents were asked to report on the country of residency but data on national-ity and ethnicity were not collected. Respondents were asked to indicate the age of the child at the time of receiv-ing an ASD diagnosis. Respondents were also asked to describe the child’s verbal ability by selecting one of five options (does not talk; uses single words; uses two- or

Page 4

4 Autism

three-word phrases; uses sentences with four or more words; uses complex sentences). Exemplars of each cate-gory were given to help respondents. For the purposes of analysis, the options were collapsed into the following two categories: low verbal ability (non-verbal or single words speech) and phrase speech (simple and complex phrases).

Before launching the survey, the questionnaire was piloted with parents approached through the main national parent support association in the United Kingdom (N = 8) and through personal contacts of clinicians in Italy (N = 2). Parents were asked to provide feedback on the survey’s content, format and accessibility. All parents reported that the survey was easily accessible and the questions clear and comprehensible. Based on the suggestion of some par-ents, the possibility to select a generic intervention if the nature of the approach was not known was further high-lighted in the initial instructions. The final set of questions was then translated and adapted by one or two researchers for each of the countries involved in the project. The researchers in each of the countries were fluent in English and expert in the field of early autism. This process involved using the official translation of named pro-grammes, where available in each country. Each transla-tion was then uploaded onto a web platform and access to the survey was made available via nation-specific web links, each bound to an online dataset provided by the sur-vey platform. A sample question of the English version of the survey is provided in Table 1.

Recruitment

The survey was addressed to parents of children with ASD aged 7 or younger and living in 20 countries involved in the COST-ESSEA network: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and the United Kingdom. Researchers and clinicians in the COST-ESSEA network promoted the recruitment of the participants through national parents’ associations who advertised the link to the web-based survey via posts on their official websites and social network pages, where available. If previous consent to receiving communications from the associa-tions had been given, an email message was sent from the associations to their members’ mailing list. Parents were also recruited via autism-related websites and social net-works and through the researchers’ professional contacts. In the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, partici-pants were recruited through the Paediatric Clinic of Skopje as parents’ associations did not exist and the survey was completed on paper for separate data entry. A decision was made to exclude Austria and Sweden from the study, as the number of participants recruited via all recruitment channels within the planned timeframe was too low

(Austria: n = 1; Sweden: n = 5). For this reason, the final dataset included information on 18 countries. Two initial questions were designed to filter out participants who did not meet the inclusion criteria: to be a parent/caregiver of a child (a) with ASD and (b) aged 7 or younger. The survey was open for 45 days. When this period expired, the data-sets were downloaded from the survey platform as SPSS files and merged into a single dataset for data analysis purposes.

Data analysis

The countries involved in the study were grouped in European regions, as defined by the official classification of the United Nations (UN, 2006): Western Europe (Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands), Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, United Kingdom), Eastern Europe (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania) and Southern Europe (Italy, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Portugal, Spain). Descriptive statistics were used to report on type and amount of intervention used in the total sample, in the four European regions and in each country separately.

To explore the determinants of use of intervention and amount of intervention received in the total sample and in the four European regions, two specific categories of interven-tion (speech and language therapy, and a summary category including behavioural, developmental and relationship-based interventions) were selected as dependent variables. These two types of interventions were selected as they were the most frequently used in the total sample and in considera-tion of their conceptual relevance to ASD.

To compare the effect of European region of residence on amount of intervention received, three one-way between-subjects analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted with the following dependent variables: (1) number of total hours per week of any intervention received; (2) number of hours per week of behavioural, developmental and relationship-based interventions and (3) number of hours per week of speech and language therapy received. Since the assumption of homogeneity of variance was not met for these data, we used the obtained Welch’s adjusted F ratio. Post hoc, pairwise, Bonferroni-corrected comparisons were conducted for each ANOVA.

To investigate the association of child and parental characteristics with use of intervention, we conducted logistic regressions for three primary outcomes (use of any intervention; use of behavioural, developmental and rela-tionship-based interventions and use of speech and lan-guage therapy). The predictors in each model were child’s gender, verbal ability, age in months, time passed since diagnosis and parental educational level. The three logistic regression models were first run for the total sample and then for each of the four European regions separately.

Page 5

Salomone et al. 5

Results

Participants

A total of 1680 families from 18 European countries par-ticipated in the study. Participation by European regions was balanced (Western Europe: n = 473; Northern Europe: n = 341; Eastern Europe: n = 354; Southern Europe: n = 512). In 83% of cases, mothers completed the survey. Overall, the educational level of respondents was high, although it varied across countries (63% of total sample had a degree or a post-graduate qualification; range: 36%–93%). In total, 83% of children with ASD were male, and the mean age was 58.18 months (SD = 14.04, range 21–83). Children’s reported ability to use at least phrase speech was 63% in the total sample and ranged from 24% to 91% across countries (Table 2).

Use of interventions

The majority of parents (n = 1529, 91%) reported using at least one type of intervention (M = 9.44 hours/week, SD = 11.95; Median = 5; interquartile range (IQR) = 2 to 11). However, 9% (n = 151) reported no use of interven-tion. The number of parents reporting using any interven-tion in Northern Europe (82.1%) was significantly lower than in Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Southern Europe (see Tables 3 and 4). The percentage in Western and Eastern Europe was significantly lower than in Southern Europe. The number of parents reporting not cur-rently using any intervention ranged from 1.3% (Poland) to 29% (Ireland); in six countries, this proportion was >10% (The Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia). In the total sample, children who did not use any type of intervention did not differ by age (t(1689) = −0.591, p = 0.554), gender (χ2(1) = 0.068, p = 0.449) or verbal ability (χ2(1) = 1.025, p = 0.178.) from children using some sort of intervention. However, there were significantly more parents with a lower educational level in the group of those not using intervention (χ2(1) = 20.457, p < 0.001), as well as more children who

had been diagnosed less than a year prior to survey com-pletion (χ2(1) = 20.457, p =< 0.001).

Speech and language therapy was the most widely used intervention (64% of total sample) with a uniform pattern of use by European regions, with the exception of Northern Europe (46%) where reported use was significantly lower than in Western (68%), Eastern (68%) and Southern Europe (70%). Behavioural, developmental and relationship-based interventions were used in 45% of the sample. The propor-tion of parents reporting using such treatments was signifi-cantly higher in Southern Europe (54%) than in Western (40%), Northern (38%) and Eastern Europe (47%). Reported use in Western and Northern Europe was signifi-cantly lower than use in Eastern Europe (see Table 4).

ANOVA models were performed for three dependent variables: total hours per week of any intervention, hours per week of behavioural, developmental or relationship-based interventions and hours per week of speech and lan-guage therapy (Table 5). There was a significant effect of European region of residency on total number of hours of intervention used; however, the effect size was small. Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni test indicated that the mean hours of intervention used by children living in Western Europe (M = 6.94, SD = 11.07) was significantly lower than the mean hours used by children living in Northern Europe (M = 10.26, SD = 13.09) and Eastern Europe (M = 9.79, SD = 12.54).

A significant effect of region was also found on number of hours of behavioural, developmental or relationship-based interventions with a medium effect size as well as on number of hours of speech and language therapy, where the effect size was small. For the behavioural, develop-mental or relationship-based interventions, post hoc com-parisons indicated that the mean hours used by children living in Northern Europe (M = 5.84, SD = 10.37) was sig-nificantly higher than the mean hours used by children liv-ing in Western Europe (M = 2.91, SD = 7.51), Eastern Europe (M = 3.67, SD = 7.1) and Southern Europe (M = 3.51, SD = 6.87). For speech and language therapy, post hoc comparisons indicated that the mean hours used by children living in Western Europe (M = 0.93, SD = 1.60)

Table 1. Sample questions from the survey.

A European survey of intervention provision for young children with autism – COST-ESSEA networkA. Treatment sectionIn this section of the survey, you will be asked about the type and quantity of TREATMENT that your child currently receives.You will be asked to say how many hours of treatment your child usually receives PER WEEK including sessions at home, in school or clinic based.For example, if your child receives 1 h of therapy every 2 weeks, you should enter 0.5 h per week.If your child receives several kinds of treatments, this will be asked for each of them.Is your child currently receiving SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY?o Yes o NoHow many hours of SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY does your child usually receive per week?N. of hours per week: ____

Page 6

6 Autism

and Northern Europe (M = 0.54, SD = 1.12) were signifi-cantly lower than the mean hours used by children living in Eastern Europe (M = 1.74, SD = 3.50) and in Southern Europe (M = 1.53, SD = 1.86).

Predictors of use of intervention

Logistic regression models were performed for three out-comes: use of any intervention, use of behavioural, devel-opmental or relationship-based interventions and use of speech and language therapy (Table 6). The models were run first in the total sample and were then repeated on four subsamples based on the European regions. All models’ χ2 statistics were significant (ps ranged < 0.001 to 0.048), except for the model predicting use of any intervention in Northern Europe (p = 0.187), which was therefore rejected. The Hosmer and Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test was not significant (hence indicating well-fitting models) for all remaining logistic regressions except for the model pre-dicting use of any intervention in the whole sample (p = 0.041), and this model was rejected too. Nagelkerke’s R2 for the remaining models ranged from 0.04 to 0.13, which is an indication that several other relevant variables had not been included in the models. Table 5 reports the

odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the pre-dictors and the models’ statistics.

Use of any intervention. In Southern Europe, controlling for child age, gender and verbal ability and for time passed since diagnosis, a high parental education level signifi-cantly increased the odds for the child to use at least one type of intervention (OR = 4.54, p = 0.004; 95% CI = [1.61, 12.84]). No associations between the predictors and use of at least one type of intervention were found for the other European regions. Time passed since diagnosis and paren-tal educational level were found to be significantly associ-ated with use of any intervention in the total sample; however, the Hosmer and Lemeshow’s goodness-of-fit test of the model indicated that the model’s estimates did not fit the data at an acceptable level.

Use of behavioural, developmental or relationship-based inter-ventions. In the total sample, controlling for child age, gen-der, verbal ability and time passed since diagnosis, a high parental educational level significantly increased the odds for the child to use behavioural, developmental or relation-ship-based interventions (OR = 1.54, p < 0.001; 95% CI = [1.25, 1.89]). The same effect was found for Eastern

Table 2. Characteristics of participants.

n Gender Age in months (years)

Verbal ability Respondent Respondent educational level

Male Non-verbal/single words

Phrase speech

Mother Up to high-school diploma

Graduate and post-graduate

n (%) M (SD) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%)

Western Europe 473 391 (82.7) 59.97 (13.53) 135 (28.5) 338 (71.5) 400 (84.6) 167 (35.3) 306 (64.7) Belgium 108 85 (78.7) 62.32 (13.59) 17 (15.7) 91 (84.3) 91 (84.3) 32 (29.6) 76 (70.4) France 188 158 (84) 56.84 (13.64) 84 (44.7) 104 (55.3) 166 (88.3) 45 (23.9) 143 (76.1) Germany 78 66 (84.6) 61.59 (11.98) 25 (32.1) 53 (67.9) 58 (74.4) 50 (64.1) 28 (35.9) Netherlands 99 82 (82.8) 62.07 (13.48) 9 (9.1) 90 (90.9) 85 (85.9) 40 (40.4) 59 (59.6)Northern Europe 341 283 (83) 60.95 (13.74) 107 (31.3) 234 (68.6) 301 (88.3) 101 (29.6) 240 (70.4) Denmark 75 57 (76) 62.23 (14.56) 14 (18.7) 61 (81.3) 66 (88) 5 (6.7) 70 (93.3) Finland 41 36 (87.8) 64.51 (12.07) 21 (51.2) 20 (48.8) 35 (85.4) 12 (29.3) 29 (70.7) Iceland 49 42 (85.7) 61.15 (13.04) 8 (16.3) 41 (83.7) 43 (87.8) 14 (28.6) 35 (71.4) Ireland 31 24 (77.4) 54.52 (13.94) 13 (41.9) 18 (58.1) 27 (87.1) 12 (38.7) 19 (61.3) Norway 34 30 (88.2) 56.85 (14.77) 13 (38.2) 21 (61.8) 28 (82.4) 8 (23.5) 26 (76.5) United Kingdom 111 94 (84.7) 61.74 (13.14) 38 (34.2) 73 (65.8) 102 (91.9) 50 (45) 61 (55)Eastern Europe 354 288 (81.4) 56.30 (13.75) 142 (40.1) 212 (59.9) 308 (87) 141 (39.8) 213 (60.2) Czech Republic 105 83 (79) 57.23 (13.06) 57 (54.3) 48 (45.7) 95 (90.5) 62 (59) 43 (41) Hungary 111 95 (85.6) 58.63 (12.96) 28 (25.2) 83 (74.8) 102 (91.9) 51 (45.9) 60 (54.1) Poland 76 57 (75) 55.45 (14.13) 27 (35.5) 49 (64.5) 63 (82.9) 19 (25) 57 (75) Romania 62 53 (85.5) 51.63 (14.86) 30 (48.4) 32 (51.6) 48 (77.4) 9 (14.5) 53 (85.5)Southern Europe 512 427 (83.4) 55.98 (14.39) 236 (46.1) 276 (53.9) 381 (74.4) 206 (40.2) 306 (59.8) Italy 104 88 (84.6) 60.78 (15.04) 47 (45.2) 57 (54.8) 68 (65.4) 42 (40.4) 62 (59.6) Macedonia 33 28 (84.8) 55.15 (12.66) 25 (75.8) 8 (24.2) 29 (87.9) 14 (42.4) 19 (57.6) Portugal 144 120 (83.3) 54.75 (15.14) 60 (41.7) 84 (58.3) 110 (76.4) 59 (41) 85 (59) Spain 231 191 (82.7) 54.7 (13.46) 104 (45) 127 (55) 174 (75.3) 91 (39.4) 140 (60.6)Total 1680 1389 (82.7) 58.18 (14.04) 620 (36.9) 1060 (63.1) 1390 (82.7) 615 (36.6) 1065 (63.4)

Page 7

Salomone et al. 7

Tab

le 3

. U

se a

nd in

tens

ity o

f int

erve

ntio

ns.

Typ

e of

inte

rven

tion

nN

one

Any

BEH

DEV

and

/or

REL

SLT

OT

OT

HPA

R T

R

%%

M (

SD)

%M

(SD

)%

M (

SD)

%M

(SD

)%

M (

SD)

%M

(SD

)%

M (

SD)

Wes

tern

Eur

ope

473

8.5

91.5

7.58

(11

.36)

29.8

6.87

(10

.34)

15.6

5.49

(8.

32)

67.7

1.38

(1.

78)

36.8

1.23

(0.

71)

47.1

4.76

(8.

63)

31.3

1.28

(1.

68)

Be

lgiu

m10

87.

492

.67.

40 (

12.4

4)17

.66.

34 (

10.3

9)22

.23.

98 (

4.33

)66

.71.

72 (

1.03

)43

.51.

53 (

0.83

)50

.04.

78 (

11.0

2)43

.51.

19 (

1.91

)

Fran

ce18

85.

994

.110

.01

(13.

28)

47.3

8.32

(11

.4)

18.1

5.81

(9.

21)

84.0

1.34

(2.

39)

19.1

0.97

(0.

6)51

.65.

3 (8

.63)

13.8

2.18

(2.

57)

G

erm

any

787.

792

.34.

20 (

5.77

)24

.42.

26 (

4.32

)10

.31.

44 (

0.5)

65.4

1.19

(0.

43)

73.1

1.22

(0.

67)

48.7

2.34

(3.

37)

33.3

0.96

(0.

96)

N

ethe

rlan

ds99

15.2

84.8

5.42

(7.

54)

14.1

4.66

(6.

77)

8.1

5.38

(5.

06)

39.4

1.16

(0.

81)

34.3

1.14

(0.

55)

34.3

5.92

(8.

24)

49.5

1.06

(.8

0)N

orth

ern

Euro

pe34

117

.082

.112

.50

(13.

45)

33.7

14.8

2 (1

1.61

)12

.66.

64 (

8.48

)46

.01.

17 (

1.41

)29

.31.

81 (

0.86

)28

.410

.81

(11.

77)

391.

19 (

1.43

)

Den

mar

k75

2476

.016

.20

(15.

47)

2423

(10

.98)

16.0

4.92

(8.

04)

22.7

0.91

(0.

5)22

.70.

98 (

0.68

)26

.717

.85

(11.

21)

46.7

1.07

(.8

2)

Finl

and

414.

995

.17.

18 (

9.05

)31

.73.

88 (

4.67

)19

.53.

69 (

2.96

)85

.41.

05 (

0.5)

61.0

0.92

(0.

31)

43.9

6.01

(9.

4)61

.10.

96 (

1.50

)

Icel

and

496.

193

.918

.22

(12.

43)

59.2

18.4

8 (9

.88)

6.1

5 (1

)44

.90.

84 (

0.26

)26

.51.

43 (

0.63

)38

.812

.11

(10.

54)

38.8

1.05

(2.

26)

Ir

elan

d31

29.

71.0

10.7

9 (8

.40)

38.7

12.6

7 (8

)12

.95.

75 (

0.96

)32

.31.

39 (

1.42

)29

1.61

(1.

73)

6.5

6.5

(4.9

5)35

.51.

90 (

2.12

)

Nor

way

342.

997

.119

.49

(15.

01)

67.6

17.4

3 (1

2.79

)20

.67.

93 (

10.1

9)11

.85.

81 (

4.96

)20

.61.

36 (

0.85

)35

.311

.25

(9.1

5)50

.00.

82 (

0.82

)

Uni

ted

Kin

gdom

111

25.2

74.8

6.97

(11

.42)

187.

54 (

9.23

)8.

14.

57 (

6.66

)62

.21.

11 (

1.3)

26.1

1.24

(0.

94)

23.4

7.93

(13

.84)

23.4

1.61

(1.

14)

East

ern

Euro

pe35

48.

591

.510

.69

(12.

73)

33.1

7.86

(7.

54)

24.9

4.34

(5.

01)

67.5

2.57

(4.

00)

32.5

3.59

(4.

37)

46.3

5.54

(7.

10)

45.5

1.40

(1.

71)

C

zech

Rep

ublic

105

17.1

82.9

5.47

(9.

22)

8.6

7.11

(7.

86)

6.7

5.43

(6.

89)

60.0

1.33

(1.

44)

18.1

1.4

(1.4

1)34

.36.

5 (8

.83)

45.7

0.62

(0.

87)

H

unga

ry11

15.

494

.68.

61 (

10.8

0)20

.74.

24 (

5.99

)50

.52.

83 (

3.21

)55

.92.

31 (

3.21

)39

.62.

51 (

2.05

)45

.04.

6 (4

.66)

48.6

2.01

(2.

14)

Po

land

761.

398

.711

.95

(10.

59)

46.1

6.77

(7.

16)

11.8

3.72

(2.

86)

94.7

1.53

(0.

88)

38.2

5.71

(6.

49)

85.5

5.05

(7.

28)

31.6

0.78

(0.

70)

R

oman

ia62

8.1

91.9

20.8

6 (1

6.77

)80

.610

.42

(7.6

8)25

.84.

58 (

3.27

)67

.76.

63 (

7.22

)37

.14.

83 (

4.66

)21

8.92

(8.

18)

56.5

1.99

(1.

79)

Sout

hern

Eur

ope

512

3.9

96.1

8.50

(10

.54)

33.0

6.61

(7.

71)

35.2

3.78

(5.

48)

70.3

2.17

(1.

88)

38.3

1.75

(1.

18)

39.3

4.65

(7.

36)

38.9

1.64

(4.

18)

It

aly

104

1.9

98.1

10.8

6 (9

.82)

64.4

8.75

(8.

06)

26.0

3.63

(3.

96)

51.0

1.97

(0.

89)

63.5

2.14

(1.

51)

30.8

3.58

(5.

24)

33.7

1.19

(1.

07)

M

aced

onia

3312

.187

.93.

43 (

1.87

)21

.20.

64 (

0.24

)21

.20.

86 (

0.56

)63

.62.

17 (

1.06

) 0

.0n/

a27

.32.

11 (

1.36

)81

.80.

67 (

0.24

)

Port

ugal

144

6.2

93.8

7.53

(10

.49)

17.4

8.52

(9.

58)

27.1

3.62

(6.

17)

72.9

1.55

(0.

96)

48.6

1.3

(0.5

)36

.85.

64 (

9.27

)33

.32.

03 (

4.30

)

Spai

n23

12.

297

.88.

67 (

11.2

5)30

.34.

47 (

6.06

)46

.32.

6 (4

.46)

78.4

2.59

(2.

4)26

.01.

85 (

1.19

)46

.34.

69 (

7.11

)38

.51.

89 (

5.33

)T

otal

1680

991

9.44

(11

.95)

32.3

8.69

(9.

86)

22.9

3.63

(5.

32)

64.0

1.88

(2.

5)34

.81.

86 (

2.3)

40.8

5.77

(8.

71)

38.2

1.40

(2.

69)

Inte

nsity

is d

efin

ed a

s nu

mbe

r of

hou

rs p

er w

eek

amon

g th

ose

who

rep

orte

d us

ing

the

spec

ified

inte

rven

tion.

Inte

nsity

of ‘

any’

inte

rven

tion

is t

he t

otal

num

ber

of h

ours

per

wee

k am

ong

thos

e w

ho

repo

rted

usi

ng a

t le

ast

one

inte

rven

tion.

Typ

es o

f int

erve

ntio

n –

Any

: any

inte

rven

tion;

BEH

: beh

avio

ural

inte

rven

tion;

DEV

and

/or

REL

: dev

elop

men

tal a

nd/o

r re

latio

nshi

p-ba

sed

inte

rven

tion;

SLT

: spe

ech

and

lang

uage

the

rapy

; OT

: occ

upat

iona

l th

erap

y; O

TH

: oth

er e

duca

tiona

l and

psy

chol

ogic

al in

terv

entio

ns; P

AR

TR

: par

ent

trai

ning

.

Page 8

8 Autism

(OR = 2.21, p < 0.001; 95% CI = [1.41, 3.47]) and South-ern Europe (OR = 1.67, p = 0.006; 95% CI = [1.16, 2.40]), but not for Western and Northern Europe. A longer time passed since diagnosis (⩾1 year) was also associated with a significant prediction for use of behavioural, develop-mental or relationship-based interventions in the total sam-ple, but when examining the regional subsamples, the prediction was significant in Southern Europe only (OR = 2.13, p = 0.002; 95% CI = [1.33, 3.42]).

Among child characteristics, verbal ability was a sig-nificant predictor in the total sample (OR = 0.72, p = 0.003; 95% CI = [0.58, 0.89]) and in Western Europe only (OR = 0.52, p = 0.004; 95% CI = [0.34, 0.81]), with non-verbal children and children with single words at an increased likelihood to use behavioural, developmental or relationship-based interventions compared with those with phrase speech. Child age was a significant predictor for use of such interventions in the total sample (OR = 0.98, p < 0.001; 95% CI = [0.97, 0.98]) and in Northern Europe (OR = 0.95, p < 0.001; 95% CI = [0.93, 0.97]), with younger children more likely to use these interventions.

Use of speech and language therapy. Time passed after receiving the diagnosis was the only significant independ-ent factor for use of speech and language therapy in the total sample, with children diagnosed more than 1 year before the survey more likely to use it (OR = 2.06, p < 0.001; 95% CI = [1.63, 2.58]). The same effect was found in Western (OR = 1.83, p = 0.006; 95% CI = [1.19,

Table 4. Use of intervention by European regions.

Use χ2(p)

n % Western Europei Northern Europei Eastern Europei Southern Europei

Any intervention Western Europej 473 91.5 – Northern Europej 341 82.1 16.219 (<0.001) – Eastern Europej 354 91.5 0.000 (0.545) 13.527 (<0.001) – Southern Europej 512 96.1 8.900 (0.002) 46.562 (<0.001) 8.029 (0.004) – Total 1680 91 Behavioural, developmental and relationship-based interventions Western Europej 473 39.7 – Northern Europej 341 38.4 0.147 (0.378) – Eastern Europej 354 46.6 3.899 (0.029) 4.769 (0.018) – Southern Europej 512 53.9 19.785 (<0.001) 19.685 (<0.001) 4.458 (0.021) – Total 1680 45.2 Speech and language therapy Western Europej 473 67.7 – Northern Europej 341 46 38.150 (<0.001) – Eastern Europej 354 67.5 0.002 (0.513) 32.671 (<0.001) – Southern Europej 512 70.3 0.813 (0.202) 50.505 (<0.001) 0.769 (0.211) – Total 1680 64

For the three categories of intervention, post-hoc, pairwise, Bonferroni corrected χ2 tests were conducted comparing each region indicated by the subscript 'i' with each region indicated by the subscript 'j'. Values significant at p < 0.05 are indicated in bold.

2.81]), Eastern (OR = 2.07, p = 0.006; 95% CI = [1.23, 3.49]) and Southern Europe (OR = 2.31, p < 0.001; 95% CI = [1.42, 3.76]), but not in Northern Europe.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to obtain an overview of use of intervention per week among parents of young children with ASD across 18 European countries. The survey, the largest conducted worldwide (N = 1680), is the first to report data on a European sample. The recruitment method, an online survey distributed via national parents associa-tions, was selected to reach the largest possible number of families in a systematic fashion across Europe and there-fore maximise the representativeness of the sample. A number of steps were undertaken to minimise the potential bias associated with the translation and adaptation of the survey in 18 different languages, including using local ter-minology to describe treatments, where available, and the employment of consensus methods in the group of expert clinicians and researchers involved in the development of the questionnaire.

The study has identified a diverse pattern of use of intervention across Europe both in terms of type and amount of intervention received. It has also demonstrated that use of intervention is associated with parental educa-tional level as well as child characteristics. Moreover, this study identified for the first time differential patterns of therapy utilisation in the West, North, East and South areas of Europe. These regional groupings, codified as such in

Page 9

Salomone et al. 9

Tab

le 5

. A

mou

nt o

f int

erve

ntio

n by

Eur

opea

n re

gion

s.

Am

ount

aM

ean

diffe

renc

esi-j (

p)

M

in–M

axM

(SD

)M

edia

n (IQ

R)

Wes

tern

Eur

ope i

Nor

ther

n Eu

rope

i

East

ern

Euro

pei

Sout

hern

Eu

rope

i

Wel

ch’s

F (ω

2 )

Any

inte

rven

tion

6.56

(0.

01)

W

este

rn E

urop

e j0–

846.

94 (

11.0

7)3

(1.5

–7)

–

N

orth

ern

Euro

pej

0–64

10.2

6 (1

3.09

)3.

25 (

0.5–

20)

−3.

32 (<

0.00

1)–

East

ern

Euro

pej

0–76

9.79

(12

.54)

5.57

(2–

12.2

4)−

2.85

(0.

003)

0.47

(1.

000)

–

So

uthe

rn E

urop

e j0–

808.

17 (

10.4

6)5

(2.8

1–9)

−1.

23 (

0.59

6)2.

10 (

0.06

1)1.

62 (

0.26

5)–

Tot

al0–

848.

59 (

11.7

2)4

(1.6

2–10

)

Beha

viou

ral,

deve

lopm

enta

l and

re

latio

nshi

p-ba

sed

inte

rven

tions

19.5

4 (0

.09)

W

este

rn E

urop

e j0–

81.5

2.91

(7.

51)

0 (0

–2)

–

N

orth

ern

Euro

pej

0–50

5.84

(10

.37)

0 (0

–9.5

)−

7.87

(<

0.00

1)–

East

ern

Euro

pej

0–55

3.67

(7.

1)0

(0–4

)−

0.57

(1.

000)

7.31

(<

0.00

1)–

Sout

hern

Eur

ope j

0–44

3.51

(6.

87)

1 (0

–4)

0.81

(1.

000)

8.68

(<

0.00

1)1.

37 (

0.87

6)–

Tot

al0–

81.5

3.85

(7.

98)

0 (0

–4)

Sp

eech

and

lang

uage

the

rapy

37.4

2 (0

.04)

W

este

rn E

urop

e j0–

300.

93 (

1.6)

1 (0

–1)

–

N

orth

ern

Euro

pej

0–10

0.54

(1.

12)

0 (0

–1)

0.39

(0.

060)

–

Ea

ster

n Eu

rope

j0–

251.

74 (

3.5)

1 (0

–2)

−0.

81 (<

0.00

1)−

1.20

(<

0.00

1)–

Sout

hern

Eur

ope j

0–20

1.53

(1.

86)

1 (0

–2)

−0.

59 (<

0.00

1)−

0.99

(<

0.00

1)0.

21 (

0.89

0)–

Tot

al0–

301.

2 (2

.19)

1 (0

–1.5

)

Am

ount

of i

nter

vent

ion

rece

ived

: num

ber

of h

ours

per

wee

k in

tot

al s

ampl

es (

incl

udin

g th

ose

repo

rtin

g no

t re

ceiv

ing

the

inte

rven

tion)

.Fo

r th

e th

ree

cate

gori

es o

f int

erve

ntio

n, p

ost-

hoc,

pai

rwis

e, B

onfe

rron

i cor

rect

ed c

ompa

riso

ns w

ere

cond

ucte

d co

mpa

ring

eac

h re

gion

indi

cate

d by

the

sub

scri

pt 'i

' with

eac

h re

gion

indi

cate

d by

the

su

bscr

ipt

'j'. V

alue

s si

gnifi

cant

at

p <

0.0

5 ar

e in

dica

ted

in b

old.

Page 10

10 Autism

Tab

le 6

. Pr

edic

tors

of u

se o

f int

erve

ntio

ns.

Euro

pe (

N =

 168

0)W

este

rn E

urop

e (n

 = 4

73)

Nor

ther

n Eu

rope

(n 

= 3

41)

East

ern

Euro

pe (

n =

 354

)So

uthe

rn E

urop

e (n

 = 5

12)

O

R (

p)1

95%

CI2

OR

(p)

95%

CI

OR

(p)

95%

CI

OR

(p)

95%

CI

OR

(p)

95%

CI

Use

of a

ny in

terv

entio

n

Chi

ld’s

age

0.99

(0.

396)

0.98

–1.0

10.

98 (

0.43

1)0.

96–1

.02

0.99

(0.

421)

0.97

–1.0

11.

02 (

0.30

4)0.

98–1

.05

1.02

(0.

227)

0.98

–1.0

7

Chi

ld’s

gen

der

(mal

e)0.

92 (

0.72

0)0.

58–1

.45

1.36

(0.

451)

0.61

–3.0

20.

76 (

0.48

8)0.

35–1

.66

1.04

(0.

934)

0.37

–2.9

10.

51 (

0.38

5)0.

11–2

.31

C

hild

’s v

erba

l abi

lity

(phr

ase

spee

ch)

0.83

(0.

368)

0.56

–1.2

41.

06 (

0.89

1)0.

47–2

.38

0.72

(0.

352)

0.36

–1.4

31.

01 (

0.98

8)0.

43–2

.36

0.74

(0.

561)

0.27

–2.0

4

T

ime

sinc

e di

agno

sis

(⩾1 

year

)2.

29 (<

0.00

1)1.

58–3

.33

2.55

(0.

011)

1.24

–5.2

21.

28 (

0.42

9)0.

69–2

.33

2.64

(0.

039)

1.05

–6.6

62.

12 (

0.18

3)0.

70–6

.44

Pa

rent

al e

duca

tiona

l le

vel (

high

) 1.

80 (

0.00

1)1.

28–2

.53

1.86

(0.

065)

0.96

–3.6

01.

92 (

0.02

7)1.

07–3

.43

1.64

(0.

212)

0.75

–3.5

54.

54 (

0.00

4)1.

61–1

2.84

χ2 (

5) =

 33.

643,

p<

0.00

1H

-L χ

2 (8)

 = 1

6.10

8, p

 = 0

.041

; R2

 = 0

.04

χ2 (

5) =

 11.

370,

p =

 0.0

45;

H-L

χ2  

ns; R

2  =

 0.0

5χ

2 (5)

 = 7

.486

, p =

 0.1

87;

H-L

χ2 (

8) =

 17.

826,

p 

= 0

.023

; R2  

= 0

.04

χ2 (

5) =

 12.

084,

p =

 0.0

34;

H-L

χ2  

ns; R

2  =

 0.0

7χ

2 (5)

 = 1

8.64

1, p

 = 0

.002

;H

-L χ

2  ns

; R2  

= 0

.13

Use

of b

ehav

iour

al, d

evel

opm

enta

l and

rel

atio

nshi

p-ba

sed

inte

rven

tions

C

hild

’s a

ge0.

98 (<

0.00

1)0.

97–0

.98

0.98

(0.

187)

0.97

–1.0

00.

95 (<

0.00

1)0.

93–0

.97

0.98

(0.

079)

0.96

–1.0

00.

98 (

0.08

8)0.

97–1

.00

C

hild

’s g

ende

r (m

ale)

0.89

(0.

407)

0.69

–1.1

60.

90 (

0.67

9)0.

55–1

.48

0.77

(0.

400)

0.42

–1.4

20.

99 (

0.96

2)0.

57–1

.72

0.90

(0.

682)

0.56

–1.4

7

Chi

ld’s

ver

bal a

bilit

y (p

hras

e sp

eech

)0.

72 (

0.00

3)0.

58–0

.89

0.52

(0.

004)

0.34

–0.8

11.

02 (

0.93

2)0.

61–1

.71

0.97

(0.

899)

0.61

–1.5

50.

66 (

0.03

3)0.

45–0

.97

T

ime

sinc

e di

agno

sis

(⩾1 

year

)1.

92 (<

0.00

1)1.

52–2

.43

1.66

(0.

019)

1.08

–2.5

41.

67 (

0.05

2)0.

99–2

.82

1.67

(0.

047)

1.01

–2.7

82.

13 (

0.00

2)1.

33–3

.42

Pa

rent

al e

duca

tiona

l le

vel (

high

) 1.

54 (<

0.00

1)1.

25–1

.89

1.14

(0.

515)

0.77

–1.7

01.

75 (

0.03

3)1.

04–2

.94

2.21

(0.

001)

1.41

–3.4

71.

67 (

0.00

6)1.

16–2

.40

χ2 (

5) =

 83.

547,

p <

 0.0

01;

H-L

χ2  

ns; R

2  =

 0.0

6χ

2 (5)

 = 1

9.36

2, p

 = 0

.002

;H

-L χ

2  ns

; R2  

= 0

.05

χ2 (

5) =

 29.

664,

p <

 0.0

01;

H-L

χ2  

ns; R

2  =

 0.1

2χ

2 (5)

 = 2

0.32

3, p

 = 0

.001

;H

-L χ

2  ns

; R2  

= 0

.07

χ2 (

5) =

 23.

475,

p <

 0.0

01;

H-L

χ2  

ns; R

2  =

 0.0

6

Use

of s

peec

h an

d la

ngua

ge t

hera

py

Chi

ld’s

age

0.99

(0.

387)

0.98

–1.0

10.

99 (

0.20

7)0.

97–1

.01

1.00

(0.

834)

0.98

–1.0

01.

01 (

0.26

5)0.

99–1

.03

1.00

(0.

988)

0.98

–1.0

2

Chi

ld’s

gen

der

(mal

e)0.

95 (

0.70

5)0.

72–1

.24

1.02

(0.

931)

0.61

–1.7

10.

87 (

0.64

7)0.

48–1

.56

0.55

(0.

072)

0.29

–1.0

51.

41 (

0.17

5)0.

86–2

.34

C

hild

’s v

erba

l abi

lity

(phr

ase

spee

ch)

0.74

(0.

010)

0.59

–0.9

30.

61 (

0.05

2)0.

37–1

.01

0.53

8 (0

.015

)0.

33–0

.88

0.92

(0.

763)

0.56

–1.5

30.

87 (

0.51

9)0.

57–1

.32

T

ime

sinc

e di

agno

sis

(⩾1 

year

)2.

06 (<

0.00

1)1.

63–2

.58

1.83

(0.

006)

1.19

–2.8

11.

57 (

0.06

7)0.

97–2

.55

2.07

(0.

006)

1.23

–3.4

92.

31 (

0.00

1)1.

42–3

.76

Pa

rent

al e

duca

tiona

l le

vel (

high

) 1.

07 (

0.53

9)0.

87–1

.32

1.33

(0.

171)

0.88

–1.9

90.

88 (

0.60

6)0.

55–1

.42

1.21

(0.

420)

0.76

–1.9

51.

12 (

0.57

3)0.

75–1

.67

χ2 (

5) =

 51.

207;

p <

 0.0

01;

H-L

χ2  

ns; R

2  =

 0.0

4χ

2 (5)

 = 1

6.67

9, p

 = 0

.005

;H

-L χ

2  ns

; R2  

= 0

.05

χ2 (

5) =

 11.

153,

p =

 0.0

48;

H-L

χ2  

ns; R

2  =

 0.0

4χ

2 (5)

 = 2

0.95

0, p

 = 0

.001

;H

-L χ

2  ns

; R2  

= 0

.08

χ2 (

5) =

 17.

891,

p =

 0.0

03;

H-L

χ2  

ns; R

2  =

 0.0

5

The

tab

le r

epor

ts t

he p

redi

ctor

s’ o

dds

ratio

s an

d co

rres

pond

ing

conf

iden

ce in

terv

als,

the

mod

els’

χ2

stat

istic

s, t

he H

osm

er a

nd L

emes

how

’s g

oodn

ess-

of-fi

t te

sts

and

Nag

elke

rke

R2s.

Whe

neve

r th

e m

odel

’s χ

2 w

as s

igni

fican

t an

d th

e H

osm

er a

nd L

emes

how

’s t

est

indi

cate

d a

good

fit

of t

he d

ata,

pre

dict

ors

sign

ifica

nt a

t p <

 0.0

05 h

ave

been

mar

ked

in b

old.

Page 11

Salomone et al. 11

the United Nations geoscheme, are not simply defined by geographical proximity, but are also characterised by similar economic and cultural background. Our approach allowed us to identify patterns of intervention use for chil-dren with autism that can potentially inform health and economic policies, now increasingly applied at a suprana-tional level such as in programmes promoted within the European Union (EU, 2013).

A number of relevant findings emerged. First, almost 1 in 10 parents who took part in the survey reported that their child was not currently receiving any type of inter-vention. At a country level, there was large variation in the overall use of intervention. The proportion of children not receiving any intervention was more than 20% in Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom, between 10% and 20% in The Netherlands, Czech Republic and the for-mer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, and less than 10% in the rest of the countries. This figure is much lower than the rate reported by Bowker et al. (2011), the only study reporting on use of any type of intervention (23% in North America and 43% in a smaller sample, n = 63, from Europe and other background). This and other differences in our results might be due to sampling bias and the differ-ent recruitment methods employed in our and other stud-ies, as well as availability of different interventions. However, it should also be noted that we enquired about a greater range of interventions (for example, parent train-ing was not included in the Bowker et al. survey) in a much larger sample.

Children not receiving any type of intervention did not differ by age, gender or verbal ability, but in this group there were significantly more children whose parent had a lower educational level and more children who had been diagnosed less than a year before survey completion. Nonetheless, the overall estimated probability of not using any type of intervention based on child and parental char-acteristics considered together did not accurately fit the data at a European level. Notably though, when examining the estimates by European regions, we identified a strong association of parental educational level with use of inter-vention in Southern Europe only, where children whose parent had a lower educational level were four times less likely to use any intervention. This finding is particularly striking considering that the parents who took part in our survey had, on average, a significantly higher educational level than the general population. This suggests that in the general population, an even wider proportion of children with ASD might not be using any intervention.

In terms of crude amount of total hours of intervention received, children in Western Europe received overall sig-nificantly less hours of intervention than children in Northern Europe and Eastern Europe. In line with previous findings in the United States (Goin-Kochel et al., 2007; Green et al., 2006), in our sample speech and language therapy stood out as the most common intervention for the

majority of children in all Europe (range 68%–70%), with the exception of Northern Europe (46%). While speech and language therapy was used by a smaller number of children in Northern Europe, the overall amount received in that region was comparable to the amount received in Western Europe and only slightly less than in Eastern and Southern Europe (between 1 and 2 hours less). No associa-tion between child or parental characteristics and use of speech and language therapy was found in Northern Europe; however, in the rest of Europe, children who had been diagnosed at least 1 year prior to survey completion were twice more likely to use this intervention. These results are not surprising given that speech and language therapists are usually part of paediatric or psychiatric ser-vices within the national health systems in some countries and/or part of school and education system in others. We did not collect information on the providers of interven-tion, but it is reasonable to presume that in most cases, speech and language therapy had been provided by the respective national health or educational systems. This may explain why speech and language therapy is consist-ently reported as the most frequently used intervention in different studies (Barrett et al., 2012; Goin-Kochel et al., 2007; Green et al., 2006). Alternatively, this might reflect parents’ choices or professional advice as language diffi-culties often are among the first concerns and therefore may be identified as priority targets for intervention fol-lowing diagnosis. The association of time passed since the diagnosis with use of speech and language therapy might represent waiting lists or other systemic factors, such as bureaucracy, that delay use of intervention. In some coun-tries, speech and language therapy is also provided in schools or other day care settings. Therefore, although parents were instructed to include all settings where the child might have received intervention while completing the survey, we cannot exclude the possibility that in some countries parents may not have reported their child receiv-ing speech and language therapy because they considered it as an integral part of the school curriculum. This might have influenced our results, particularly the finding that speech and language therapy was less used in Northern Europe.

A different pattern emerged when considering the use of behavioural, developmental and relationship-based interventions. Behavioural interventions were used by a third of the sample overall, with equal distribution by European region but much wider range by country. Developmental and relationship-based approaches were more commonly used in Southern and Eastern Europe. All these treatments, combined together, represented the sec-ond most used type of intervention (55% in the total sample). The proportion of children receiving these inter-ventions was fairly similar across Europe (Southern 54%, Eastern 47%, Western Europe 40%, Northern Europe 38%) but on average children in Northern Europe received

Page 12

12 Autism

between 8 and 9 more hours per week than the children in the rest of Europe (for those using the intervention, the mean reported hours were 15 in Northern Europe and between 6 and 8 for the rest of Europe).

Moreover, we identified some differences by region of residence in the factors predicting use of these interven-tions. Child characteristics predicted use of behavioural, developmental and relationship-based interventions in Northern and Western Europe: younger children and children who had not developed phrase speech were, respectively, more likely to be using such interventions in those regions of Europe. However, a higher parental edu-cational level predicted increased likelihood of using such interventions in Eastern Europe and in Southern Europe; in the latter, time passed since the diagnosis was also an independent predictor of use of intervention. The availa-ble data cannot tease out the nature of the associations between child characteristics and use of intervention in Western and Northern Europe; for example, this might be due to services prioritising younger or more impaired children, or parents of such children might be more moti-vated to use specific interventions. As far as Southern and Eastern Europe are concerned instead, the association of parental educational level with use of behavioural, devel-opmental and relationship-based interventions (but not with speech and language therapy) regardless of chil-dren’s needs might be an indication that these interven-tions are not provided by public national health systems and have to be found and paid directly by the families. Educational level of adults is in fact a common proxy for socioeconomic status (SES) in the literature and its rela-tion with occupational status and income is well estab-lished (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002). In a US sample of 70 parents of children with ASD aged 6 years or younger enrolled in a parent advocacy group, parental educational attainment predicted higher service utilisation (Siller et al., 2014). Our study replicates this finding of a signifi-cant association of parental educational level with use of intervention on a non-US large-scale sample; additionally, our study suggests that, at least in Europe, this effect might vary by area of residence.

In the absence of systematic information on differences and similarities in national health and educational policies across Europe, it is not possible to speculate on which might be the most influential factors driving the differ-ences in service use we found. However, our finding that in Southern and Eastern Europe children of individuals with a lower educational level had considerably fewer chances of using interventions suggests per se that there are health inequalities in Europe in respect to intervention for ASD. This is something that policy makers in Europe, both at a national and a union level, need to be made aware of. Furthermore, finding such an effect in this highly edu-cated sample raises the possibility that the gap in terms of use of intervention between richer and poorer sectors of

society in Eastern and Southern Europe might be even wider in the general population.

While there is scientific consensus over the fact that children with ASD should receive individualised, multi-dimensional and multi-disciplinary interventions, the real-ity is that in our survey significant parts of the population report no or limited use of therapy. Whether this is because some parents have few opportunities to know how to access behavioural, developmental and relationship-based interventions, or whether such interventions are generally not publicly funded and hence available to families only via their own funds, considerable policy and service devel-opment is required across Europe to ensure that communi-ties are consistent with the rights of children with disabilities to access health and education (UN, 2007). More research is needed to further explore the role of soci-oeconomic factors in use of interventions, and whether a similar pattern is found in other parts of the world.

Limitations and future directions

Several limitations of the study need to be acknowledged, many shared by previous research conducted on this sub-ject. The recruitment method chosen (online survey dis-tributed by parent associations) might have been prone to selection bias, as research has shown that parents of chil-dren with autism involved in support groups are likely to have a relatively high income and educational level (Mandell and Salzer, 2007) and that access to Internet in Europe is still a function of socio-demographic character-istics (Vicente and López, 2011). Our sample was in fact characterised by an unusually high educational level: 63% of respondents of our survey (for the vast majority women) reported having a graduate or post-graduate educational level. Data from the European Commission on tertiary education attainment in females for the year when the sur-vey was completed (2012) show that only 40% of European women in the age range 30–34 years have an education level above secondary schooling (Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Union, 2014). While this is a limi-tation shared by previous studies (for example, in the V. Green et al. study, 88% of the sample had an educational level beyond high school), this may limit the generalisabil-ity of our results to the European population. Moreover, since recruitment was conducted locally by each national association, differences in the outreach of each organisa-tion might have influenced sampling and, although rela-tively uniform at a regional level, sample sizes at a country level varied considerably. Critically, we do not know how representative the parents who responded to our survey were of service utilisation more generally within each community, and whether in some countries certain sectors of the population were particularly underrepresented. It is likely that parents enrolled in parents’ associations are more active and successful in seeking and accessing

Page 13

Salomone et al. 13

intervention. However, while this recruitment strategy was potentially bound to bias, it allowed us to reach a large number of families in a wide range of countries, making this study the largest conducted to date on the topic and the first providing systematic data for Europe.

Our study was also limited by the use of cross-sectional data, which do not facilitate exploration of whether our results represent an age or cohort effect influenced by eco-nomic contingencies in Europe. Furthermore, although educational level is a common proxy for SES, future stud-ies need to examine whether the present results hold also for other indicators, such as household income or parental occupation. The interpretation of our finding has also been limited by the lack of information on the type and amount of services available publicly via the national health sys-tems in each country, as opposed to privately accessed interventions. In addition, it was not possible to separate out the contexts where intervention was provided, particu-larly in respect to intervention provided in school or day care settings, and this may have limited the interpretation of our findings. While there is some evidence of lack of uniformity in the public provision of services for children with disabilities across Europe (Ballesteros et al., 2013), more detailed cross-national comparisons of health and educational systems, which would have allowed us to bet-ter interpret our findings, are not available. Data from existing and future international cooperation programmes are needed to better understand and address possible ine-qualities in use of intervention for autism. Further EU ini-tiatives to strengthen the scientific cooperation among European countries are needed in order to conduct trans-European studies that can employ more resource-intensive recruitment methods that are likely less prone to selection bias and can contribute to overcome the limitations of the present study and previous research on the topic.

Finally, reliance on parent report in the absence of direct assessments places a limitation on these findings in relation to severity of symptoms and behavioural charac-teristics. Furthermore, no attempt was made to collect information on additional determinants of service use. For example, the presence of comorbid disorders in children with ASD is likely to influence intervention usage, but we did not enquire about comorbidities. Future prospective studies are needed to understand the patterns of interven-tion use in childhood taking into account the educational as well as the clinical settings where intervention is pro-vided. To keep the survey to a minimum and maximise completion rate, we chose not to directly enquire about the accessibility of various interventions and why parents did or did not use certain interventions. In retrospect, the availability of such direct information would have been very valuable to interpret the variability found across regions in intervention usage. In future studies, parents should be explicitly asked for the reasons underlying not using (certain) interventions. This is necessary in order to

be able to distinguish personal choices (e.g. not agreeing with the philosophy of the intervention), from lack of availability (interventions not being distributed in the area), barriers to access (e.g. waiting lists or costly inter-ventions solely provided privately) or knowledge barriers (parents not knowing of the existence of certain interven-tions). Future work may also include further exploring the regional variations by analysing the results per country, taking into account the respective national health systems and exploring the different patterns of public versus pri-vate provision of services in each country that might have affected our findings.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our study showed that in the Eastern and Southern regions of Europe, more educated parents are more successful than parents with lower educational level in obtaining use of specialist interventions that could improve the outcomes of children with autism. This finding is particularly notable since, as outlined above, our sample had a higher education level than the general European population. Moreover, it appeared that even relatively low-cost and commonly publicly funded interventions such as speech and language therapy are not immediately available for the majority of families, as in all Europe (except for Northern Europe), children recently diagnosed were only half as likely to use inter-vention as children diagnosed at least 1 year prior to sur-vey completion.

Our data also showed a considerable variability in the amount of intervention used across countries with the overall mean of the whole sample being 9 hours per week. While there is little scientific evidence on what constitutes the appropriate number of hours per week necessary to obtain long-lasting positive outcomes, some guidelines give explicit recommendations (at least 25 hours per week: Myers and Johnson, 2007). Other guidelines, such as the Practice Parameters released by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Volkmar et al., 2014), do not include a specification of the amount of the ‘appro-priate, evidence-based, and structured educational and behavioral interventions’ (p. 244) recommended, and low-intensity (and therefore more sustainable in the real set-tings) versions of well-established models (Dawson et al., 2010) are just beginning to be tested (Vismara et al., 2009).

At a societal and political level, our study highlights the pressing need to address inequalities in access to health-care. Training professionals in the community, particularly those employed in national health and educational sys-tems, to early diagnose and treat ASD is crucial to ensure that families are not left alone in dealing with their child’s difficulties. Parent support strategies should be imple-mented, involving the civil society in an inclusive model of awareness. Public services need to be empowered in

Page 14

14 Autism

terms of funds and resources in order to guarantee timeli-ness and continuity in the provision of intervention and education. In the economic uncertainty that characterises these times, it is vital to ensure that sound and scalable interventions are tested in international collaborative efforts and then implemented in the communities across Europe. The implementation of methodologically rigorous RCTs of interventions that are realistically implementable within the constraints of school and clinic services in Europe will provide evidence on the ‘minimum critical amount’ needed to make long-lasting improvements in outcome. Research findings should, in turn, inform future policy and practice guidelines for treatment provision for all young children with autism across Europe.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to all the parents who participated in the study and to the parent associations that were involved in recruiting the participants.

Funding

This research was supported by COST Action BM1004 funded by the European Science Foundation. TC and JG also received support from the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking under grant agreement no. 115300, resources of which are composed of financial contribution from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) and EFPIA companies’ in-kind contribution.

Note

1. The European project Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) is an intergovernmental framework that supports the coordination of nationally funded research on a European level.

References

Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network Surveillance Year 2010 Principal Investigators; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2014) Prevalence of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years – autism and developmental disabilities monitoring net-work, 11 sites, United States, 2010. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 63: 1.

Baird G, Simonoff E, Pickles A, et al. (2006) Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP). The Lancet 368(9531): 210–215.

Ballesteros M, Jurkiewicz K and Meurens N (2013) Member States’ Policies for Children with Disabilities. Brussels: European Parliament.

Barrett B, Byford S, Sharac J, et al. (2012) Service and wider societal costs of very young children with autism in the UK. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 42(5): 797–804. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-011-1306-x.

Bölte S, Marschik P, Falck-Ytter T, et al. (2013) Infants at risk for autism: a European perspective on current status, chal-lenges and opportunities. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 22: 341–348. DOI: 10.1007/s00787-012-0368-4.

Bowker A, D’Angelo N, Hicks R, et al. (2011) Treatments for autism: parental choices and perceptions of change. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 41(10): 1373–1382. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-010-1164-y.

Bradley RH and Corwyn RF (2002) Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology 53(1): 371–399. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135233.

Cassidy A, McConkey R, Truesdale-Kennedy M, et al. (2008) Preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders: the impact on families and the supports available to them. Early Child Development and Care 178(2): 115–128. DOI: 10.1080/03004430701491721.

Dawson G, Rogers S, Munson J, et al. (2010) Randomized, con-trolled trial of an intervention for toddlers with autism. The early start Denver model: Pediatrics 125(1): e17–e23. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-0958.

EU (2007) Commission Decision of 12 February 2007 adopt-ing the work plan for 2007 for implementation of the programme of Community action in the field of public health (2003–2008), including the annual work pro-gramme for grants. Official Journal of the European Union 50: 27–44.

EU (2013) Regulation (EU) NO 1291/2013 of the European Parliament and of the establishing Horizon 2020 – the framework programme for research and innovation (2014–2020) and repealing Decision No 1982/2006/EC. Official Journal of the European Union, L 347/104: 104–173.

Eurostat (2014) Tertiary Educational Attainment by Sex, Age Group 30–34 (data tables: t2020_41). Brussels: Eurostat, the Statistical Office of the European Union. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&plugin=1&language=en&pcode=t2020_41.

García-Primo P, Hellendoorn A, Charman T, et al. (2014) Screening for autism spectrum disorders: state of the art in Europe. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 23(11): 1005–1021. DOI: 10.1007/s00787-014-0555-6.

Goin-Kochel RP, Myers BJ and Mackintosh VH (2007) Parental reports on the use of treatments and therapies for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1(3): 195–209. DOI: 10.1016/j.rasd.2006.08.006.

Green J, Charman T, McConachie H, et al. (2010) Parent-mediated communication-focused treatment in children with autism (PACT): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 375(9732): 2152–2160. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60587-9

Green VA, Pituch KA, Itchon J, et al. (2006) Internet survey of treatments used by parents of children with autism. Research in Developmental Disabilities 27(1): 70–84. DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2004.12.002.

Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) (2012) Recommendation de bonne pratique: Autisme et autres troubles envahissants du développement: diagnostic et évaluation chez l’adulte. Available at: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/ application/pdf/2011-10/autisme_et_autres_ted_diagnostic_ et_evaluation_chez_ladulte_-_argumentaire.pdf

Health Council of the Netherlands (HCN) (2009) Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Lifetime of Difference. The Hague: HCN (publication no. 2009//09E).

Kaale A, Smith L and Sponheim E (2012) A randomized con-trolled trial of preschool-based joint attention interven-tion for children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology

Page 15

Salomone et al. 15

and Psychiatry 53(1): 97–105. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2011.02450.x.

Kasari C, Lawton K, Shih W, et al. (2014) Caregiver-mediated intervention for low-resourced preschoolers with autism: an RCT. Pediatrics 134(1): e72–e79. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-3229.

Lai MC, Lombardo MV and Baron-Cohen S (2014) Autism. The Lancet 383(9920): 896–910.

Landa RJ, Holman KC, O’Neill AH, et al. (2011) Intervention targeting development of socially synchronous engagement in toddlers with autism spectrum disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 52(1): 13–21. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02288.x.

Liptak GS, Benzoni LB, Mruzek DW, et al. (2008) Disparities in diagnosis and access to health services for children with autism: data from the National Survey of Children’s Health. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics 29(3): 152–160.

McConachie H, Fletcher-Watson S and Working Group 4; COST Action ‘Enhancing the Scientific Study of Early Autism’ (2014) Building capacity for rigorous controlled trials in autism: the importance of measuring treatment adherence. Child: Care, Health and Development. Epub ahead of print 27 August. DOI: 10.1111/cch.12185.

Mandell DS and Salzer MS (2007) Who joins support groups among parents of children with autism? Autism 11(2): 111–122. DOI: 10.1177/1362361307077506.

Mandell DS, Wiggins LD, Carpenter LA, et al. (2009) Racial/ethnic disparities in the identification of children with autism spectrum disorders. American Journal of Public Health 99(3): 493–498. DOI: 10.2105/ajph.2007.131243.

Myers SM and Johnson CP (2007) Management of children with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics 120(5): 1162–1182. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2007-2362.

Narzisi A, Colombi C, Balottin U, et al. (2013) Non-pharmacological treatments in autism spectrum disorders: an overview on early interventions for pre-schoolers. Current Clinical Pharmacology 9: 17–26.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2013) Autism. The management and support of children and young people on the autism spectrum. NICE clinical guideline 170. Available at: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg170/resources/guidance-autism-pdf

Oono IP, Honey EJ and McConachie H (2013) Parent-mediated early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Cochrane Database of System Reviews 4: CD009774.

Pajareya K and Nopmaneejumruslers K (2011) A pilot randomized controlled trial of DIR/Floortime™ parent training interven-tion for pre-school children with autistic spectrum disorders. Autism 15(5): 563–577. DOI: 10.1177/1362361310386502.

Rattaz C, Ledesert B, Masson O, et al. (2012) Special education and care services for children, adolescents, and adults with autism spectrum disorders in France: families’ opinion and satisfaction. Autism. Epub ahead of print 8 October. DOI: 10.1177/1362361312460952.

Raz R, Lerner-Geva L, Leon O, et al. (2013) A survey of out-of-pocket expenditures for children with autism spectrum disor-der in Israel. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 43(10): 2295–2302. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-013-1782-2.

Ruble LA and McGrew JH (2007) Community services outcomes for families and children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders 1(4): 360–372. DOI: 10.1016/j.rasd.2007.01.002.

Salomone E, Charman T, McConachie H, et al. (in press) Enhancing the scientific study of early autism. Prevalence and correlates of use of complementary and alternative medicine in children with autism spectrum disorder in Europe. European Journal of Pediatrics. DOI: 10.1007/s00431-015-2531-7.

Shattuck PT, Durkin M, Maenner M, et al. (2009) Timing of identification among children with an autism spectrum disorder: findings from a population-based surveillance study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 48(5): 474–483. DOI: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e31819b3848.

Siklos S and Kerns KA (2006) Assessing need for social support in parents of children with autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 36(7): 921–933. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-006-0129-7.

Siller M, Reyes N, Hotez E, et al. (2014) Longitudinal change in the use of services in autism spectrum disorder: under-standing the role of child characteristics, family demograph-ics, and parent cognitions. Autism 18(4): 433–446. DOI: 10.1177/1362361313476766.

Thomas K, Ellis AR, McLaurin C, et al. (2007a) Access to care for autism-related services. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 37(10): 1902–1912. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-006-0323-7.

Thomas K, Morrissey J and McLaurin C (2007b) Use of autism-related services by families and children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 37(5): 818–829. DOI: 10.1007/s10803-006-0208-9.

UN (2006) ISO 3166-1: Codes for the Representation of Names of Countries and Their Subdivisions – Part 1: Country Codes, ISO 3166-1: 2006 (E/F). Geneva: ISO.

UN (2007) Convention on the rights of persons with disabili-ties. Annex 1, Final report of the ad hoc committee on a comprehensive and integral international convention on the protection and promotion of the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, A/RES/61/106, 24 January. New York: UN.

Vicente MR and López AJ (2011) Assessing the regional digital divide across the European Union-27. Telecommunications Policy 35(3): 220–237. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2010.12.013

Vismara LA, Colombi C and Rogers SJ (2009) Can one hour per week of therapy lead to lasting changes in young children with autism? Autism 13(1): 93–115. DOI: 10.1177/1362361307098516.

Volkmar F, Siegel M, Woodbury-Smith M, et al. (2014) Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 53(2): 237–257.

Warren Z, McPheeters ML, Sathe N, et al. (2011) A systematic review of early intensive intervention for autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics 127(5): e1303–e1311. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2011-0426.

Page 16

16 Autism

Appendix 1

A European survey of intervention provision for young children with autism – COST-ESSEA network

A. Treatment section. In this section of the survey, you will be asked about the type and quantity of TREATMENT that your child currently receives.

You will be asked to say how many hours of treatment your child usually receives PER WEEK including sessions at home, in school or clinic based.

For example, if your child receives 1 h of therapy every 2 weeks, you should enter 0.5 h per week.

If your child receives several kinds of treatments, this will be asked for each of them.

In the first part, we will ask you about the treatments that YOUR CHILD receives. You will see names of many different treatment approaches and disciplines.For example,

•• BEHAVIOURAL treatments, such as ABA, PRT, Lovaas, Discrete Trial Training (DTT) and Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention (EIBI).

•• DEVELOPMENTAL treatments, such as Relationship Development Intervention (RDI) and Early Start Denver Model (ESDM).

•• RELATIONSHIP-based treatments, such as Developmental Individual Difference Relationship-based (DIR Model), Floortime, Thérapie d’Echange et de Développement (TED) and Marte Meo.

And then,

•• PORTAGE,•• SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY,•• OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY.

If your child is receiving another treatment that is not listed, or if you are not sure about what to answer, don’t worry. You can tell us that your child is receiving ANOTHER type of treatment and specify the hours of intervention.At the end, we will ask you whether you or the other parent currently receive PARENT TRAINING. Thank you!

A.1. Treatments for your child. Is your child currently receiving SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY?

Yes No

How many hours of SPEECH AND LANGUAGE THERAPY does your child usually receive per week?

N. of hours per week: ____

Is your child currently receiving OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY/PHYSIOTHERAPY?

Yes No

How many hours of OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY/PHYSIOTHERAPY does your child usually receive per week?

N. of hours per week: ____

Is your child currently receiving a BEHAVIOURAL treatment?

For example, Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA), Pivotal Response Training (PRT), Lovaas, Discrete Trial Training (DTT) and Early Intensive Behavioural Intervention (EIBI).

Yes No

How many hours of BEHAVIOURAL treatment does your child usually receive per week?

N. of hours per week: ____

Page 17

Salomone et al. 17

Is your child currently receiving a DEVELOPMENTAL treatment?

For example, Relationship Development Intervention (RDI) and Early Start Denver Model (ESDM).

Yes No

How many hours of DEVELOPMENTAL treatment does your child usually receive per week?

N. of hours per week: ____

Is your child currently receiving a RELATIONSHIP-BASED treatment?

For example, Developmental Individual Difference Relationship-based (DIR Model), floortime, Thérapie d’Echange et de Développement (TED) and Marte Meo.

Yes No

How many hours of RELATIONSHIP-BASED treatment does your child usually receive per week?

N. of hours per week: ____

Is your child currently receiving a PORTAGE intervention?

Yes No

How many hours of PORTAGE intervention does your child usually receive per week by the Portage teacher?

N. of hours per week: ____

Is your child currently receiving ANOTHER treatment (not previously specified)?

Yes No

What kind of treatment is it?

(Please select which best describes the treatment). psychological intervention educational intervention social skills training other I don’t know

How many hours of this treatment does your child usually receive per week?

N. of hours per week: ____

A.2. Treatments with the parent. Are you or the other parent currently receiving PARENT TRAINING/COACHING/COUNSELLING to help you with your child?

Yes No

How many hours of PARENT TRAINING/COACHING/COUNSELLING do you usually receive per week?

N. of hours per week: ____