• Replies 25 replies
  • Subscribers 26 subscribers
  • Views 10793 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
Hints and tips
  • To quote someone's message, first select/highlight the relevant text, and then use the Quote button that appears
  • To "mention" someone, type @ followed by the start of the forum name, and choose from the list; that person will get a notification of being mentioned

suicide risk and people at the abler end of the autistic spectrum

longman

This might look a bit technical, but it is an important question. How representative is research on autism?

I have come across one or two reports which seem to point to there being a risk of suicide or attempts at suicide particularly amongst adults at the abler end of the autistic spectrum who don't show any other evidence of being at risk.

The problem with these studies is they refer to very few previous reports of this phenomena, and therefore cannot make a strong case. But their inference is that people who are abler are more likely to be working and living in environments where their disability affects them so adversely.

Currently there is a lot of research ongoing into suicide risk amongst adults on the spectrum who suffer significantly from depression. There have been a lot of published papers in the last year.

It might be deduced that the research evidence disproves a risk in abler adults not manifesting depression.

However looking through such research the autistic populations being studied are very specific to one research centre, or one diagnostic service, or one diagnostic method. There doesn't seem to be a lot of research from the broader population of people diagnosed on the autistic spectrum.

I can understand the constraints on research in accessing data nationally, but if some studies are too specific, is there any way of ensuring that there is a proportion of research carried out on more general populations.

The risk otherwise is that overly specific groups of research subjects yield misleading results.

Usually the procedure for research using restricted populations is to set down the limitations of any given study population. This is one way of flagging up the need for other populations to be studied.

It is very important in autism that research looks at a representative enough group of people.

Parents

  • It might help to look at other contexts.

    A lot of research on autism in the past was based on people receiving interventions - eg people being treated for depression who had autism, people being treated for OCD who had autism.

    The risk when using such groups of people is that the only people studied are those with depression or OCD. The study would not include people who disn't show depression or OCD. So the research could come up with findings that only affected people with depression or OCD.

    Such research might deduce things about autism that were not true for people who weren't significantly depressed or significantly affected by OCD.

    Although nowadays there should be safeguards to prevent this, research within specific groups, distinguished by being treated by the same people or being diagnosed by the same people, is that important characteristics in the wider population might not be represented in that very specific group.

    Hence research always using the same specific group might be inaccurate.

    For example, if people with depression form a study group on suicide, they aren't going to reveal anything about suicide potential amongst people who don't have depression. Indeed it might be very hard to include people who are able, in long term employment, under such pressures UNLESS they had needed interventions beforehand, such as for depression.

    If the people studied were only people who paid for a private diagnosis, many people in that group who can afford such a diagnosis are perhaps more self assured and self confident and less likely to have a suicide risk.

    It might actually be very hard to research people at the abler end with no other complications who might be predisposed to attempt suicide.

Reply

  • It might help to look at other contexts.

    A lot of research on autism in the past was based on people receiving interventions - eg people being treated for depression who had autism, people being treated for OCD who had autism.

    The risk when using such groups of people is that the only people studied are those with depression or OCD. The study would not include people who disn't show depression or OCD. So the research could come up with findings that only affected people with depression or OCD.

    Such research might deduce things about autism that were not true for people who weren't significantly depressed or significantly affected by OCD.

    Although nowadays there should be safeguards to prevent this, research within specific groups, distinguished by being treated by the same people or being diagnosed by the same people, is that important characteristics in the wider population might not be represented in that very specific group.

    Hence research always using the same specific group might be inaccurate.

    For example, if people with depression form a study group on suicide, they aren't going to reveal anything about suicide potential amongst people who don't have depression. Indeed it might be very hard to include people who are able, in long term employment, under such pressures UNLESS they had needed interventions beforehand, such as for depression.

    If the people studied were only people who paid for a private diagnosis, many people in that group who can afford such a diagnosis are perhaps more self assured and self confident and less likely to have a suicide risk.

    It might actually be very hard to research people at the abler end with no other complications who might be predisposed to attempt suicide.

Children
No Data