Billets de Michelle Dawson

Billet publié sur Twitter/X le 24/07/2023 10:45

Twitter/X Publication avec DOI crossref Extrait cité dans le billet Question posée par Dawson dans le billet Lien intégré au billet Termes sur l’autisme

Liens cités structurés

1 ressource citée

Publication avec DOI Récupéré Publication crossref

Hannah Edwards, Sarah Wright, Cora Sargeant, Samuele Cortese, Henry Wood‐Downie (2024). Research Review: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of sex differences in narrow constructs of restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests in autistic children, adolescents, and adults. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 65(1), 4-17. Wiley.

Date de publication
23/07/2023
Identifiant
10.1111/jcpp.13855
Auteurs
Hannah Edwards, Sarah Wright, Cora Sargeant, Samuele Cortese, Henry Wood‐Downie
Source
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Détails
65(1), 4-17
Type de référence
article
Éditeur
Wiley
Source de métadonnées
crossref

Résumé

Background Evidence that autism often manifests differently between males and females is growing, particularly in terms of social interaction and communication, but it is unclear if there are sex differences in restricted and repetitive behaviours and interests (RRBIs) when rigorously focusing on the narrow construct level (i.e., stereotyped behaviour, restricted interests, insistence on sameness, and/or sensory experiences). Methods We conducted a systematic review and four random effects meta‐analyses investigating sex differences in narrow construct measures of RRBIs in autistic children, adolescents, and adults (Prospero registration ID: CRD42021254221). Study quality was appraised using the Newcastle‐Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Results Forty‐six studies were narratively synthesised and 25 of these were included in four random effects meta‐analyses. Results found that autistic males had significantly higher levels of stereotyped behaviours (SMD = 0.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.09, 0.33], p <.001) and restricted interests (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI [0.07, 0.29], p <.001) compared to autistic females. In contrast, there were no significant sex differences for sensory experiences (SMD = −0.09, 95% CI [−0.27, 0.09], p =.32) and insistence on sameness (SMD = 0.01, 95% CI [−0.03, 0.05], p =.68). The findings from the narrative synthesis were generally consistent with those from the meta‐analyses and also found qualitative sex differences in the way RRBIs manifest. Conclusions Our findings show significant differences in narrowly defined RRBIs in males and females. Practitioners need to be aware of such differences, which could be contributing to the under‐recognition of autism in females and may not be captured by current diagnostic instruments.

Auteur·ices de l’étude dans cette référence citée