Thursday, 25 June 2009

Are 1 in 64 Kids Autistic?

Quite possibly, yes. In the last post I discussed the interesting background to a new paper about the prevalence of autism in British children, Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study. Here's some more about the study itself.

The authors, Simon Baron-Cohen et al from the University of Cambridge, set out to assess the prevalence of “autistic spectrum conditions” in the county of Cambridgeshire, England, by sampling all of the school children aged 5 to 9 years during 2003-2004.

The most recent major study examining the prevalence of autistic spectrum conditions in Britain was Baird et al (2006), who reported a prevalence of about 1 in 86. But Baron-Cohen et al point out that this may have been too low, since Baird only looked for autism in children who were already on the government's “Special Educational Needs (SEN)” register of children with difficulties in school. If there were autistic children who were doing OK in school, or at least well enough to get by without attracting concern, they’d have been missed.

So, Baron-Cohen’s team first wrote to every school in Cambridgeshire (162 of them) and asked them to report how many of their children had been diagnosed with an autism-spectrum condition.
79 schools replied and reported 83 children diagnosed out of 8824 total, or 1 in 106 children – pretty close to Baird et al's in 2006.

But those were only the kids who had already got a diagnosis. In order to try to find undiagnosed cases, they then sent questionnaires to the parents of 11,635 children. The questionnaires included a screening form developed in Cambridge called the CAST, which asks parents about various aspects of their child’s behaviour (“Does s/he come up to you spontaneously for a chat?” “Does s/he like to do things over and over again, in the same way all the time?” Etc.)

The authors invited all of the kids who scored highly on the CAST to a face-to-face assessment to confirm whether they really had the condition. The end result was that out of 3373 kids whose questionnaires were returned, 11 were judged (in the opinion of the research team) to have an autism-spectrum condition which had never been previously diagnosed.

What does this mean? Well, good question. All it strictly means is that 11 out of 3373 children had undiagnosed autism. However, because not all of the children who scored highly on the CAST agreed to be interviewed, the authors estimate that the true figure was probably more like 22. That compares to 33 out of those 3373 whose parents reported already diagnosed autism. (Actually it was 41 reported, but only an estimated 33 were declared “confirmed”. See page 503 if you’re sceptical of this fudge, but it seems kosher to me.)

The bottom line: for every 3 children with a diagnosis, 2 others went undiagnosed. Since about 1 in 100 children have diagnosed autism, that makes 1 in 64 children with autistic spectrum conditions in total.

But this relies on some assumptions. In particular, this only works if you assume that the parents of autistic children were no more or less likely to complete the CAST questionnaire, and no more or less likely to agree to a face-to-face interview, than parents of the non-autistic kids.

However, it could well be that the parents of autistic children were already concerned that there was “something wrong” with their child and wanted to get a professional opinion, so they were keen to take part – that would mean that this study overestimated the rate of undiagnosed autism. On the other hand, it could equally well be that the autistic children were less likely to get included in the study. Maybe they just didn't want to go along to the interview with a stranger. In which case, the rate of autism would be underestimated.

Because only 29% of parents did the questionnaire and even then only about 60% of the children who scored high came up for the face-to-face, the potential for bias is great. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing which way the bias operates. The authors acknowledge these concerns and admit that their estimates are not exact.

But this is still an important study. Even if you assume that the data were extremely biased towards finding autistic children there were still 11 cases of undiagnosed autism out of about 11,000 kids aged 5-9, compared to 83 diagnosed, which means that at an absolute minimum 1 in 9 children with autism of that age are undiagnosed. And the true figure is likely to be a lot higher, maybe 2 in 5 as the paper claims.

On this blog I've often been skeptical of claims that mental illness is extremely common. But I can easily believe that 1 in 64 children has a significant autism spectrum-condition, and that some cases go undiagnosed in primary school. While we still don't know the exact numbers, and these will always be somewhat arbitrary since they depend upon the chosen diagnostic, about 1 in 50 sounds about right. Certainly, the idea that autism is an extremely rare condition affecting more like 1 in 2000, as was believed twenty years ago, is out of date.

ResearchBlogging.orgBaron-Cohen, S., Scott, F., Allison, C., Williams, J., Bolton, P., Matthews, F., & Brayne, C. (2009). Prevalence of autism-spectrum conditions: UK school-based population study The British Journal of Psychiatry, 194 (6), 500-509 DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.108.059345

13 comments:

reasonsformoving said...

What's your opinion of autism-spectrum condition? Isn't it a somewhat broadly defined condition?

John S. Wilkins said...

Presuming that Baron-Cohen is right, and this is a distributional trait of varying intensity, then what you are basically saying is that in a normal distribution, some number of people fall above a particular line, say, 2 sigma.

Neuroskeptic said...

rmf: I think there certainly is an autism spectrum. It's not an either-or thing. Now that said "autism-spectrum condition" could be too broad, but it doesn't have to be. It depends what you count as one. In this study they seem to have used a pretty narrow definition.

JSW: Partly true yes but if you define having an "autism-spectrum condition" as meaning "noticeably and significantly affected by autistic traits" then I think it's meaningful.

Obvious in any normal distribution some people will score high. But it's meaningful to ask how many score high enough for it to "matter", although that judgment is inevitably subjective, it's still a good question to ask.

PernaLonga said...

Isn't sending a survey to parents to determine if their children have autism effectively the same thing as asking them to diagnose their child? That seems... controversial. Kind of like sending the MMPI home with a client, and letting them determine if they are disordered... Did I misunderstand this article?

But what do I know, I'm a student.
.sean

Janka said...

PernaLonga, good question. I thought the same when I first read about the parent questionnaire, but notice that it goes on to say that everyone who scored high on that questionnaire was invited to see a specialist, and that not all of those who did were diagnosed with autism. The questionnaire was only to screen who should be examined. In practical medicine, parents always do this part: they decide to seek help because of what they know of their child, and they give information to the doctor about their child's behavior. The CAST is simply a structured way to ask for that information. :)

Neuroskeptic said...

Janka: That's right. They invited every child who scored >=15 on the CAST up to an interview and the diagnosis was based on the interview, not on the CAST as such.

The CAST has the advantage of being a quick & easy method of selecting those kids who may be autistic. The only real alternative would be to interview a random sample of all children but that would take a huge amount of time and money.

Gaythia said...

This June, the Governor of the State of Colorado signed into law SB 09-244 which apparently requires insurance companies to provide coverage for the treatment of autism. This seems to include (after July of 2010) maximum annual benefits of US $ 34,000 from birth to 8 years of age and US $12,000 for 9 to 18 years of age.

While I am not qualified to evaluate the need or impact of this law, I am concerned about determining insurance coverage by effective advocacy lobbying. Also, it seems to me that this could put pressure on health providers from parents to give diagnoses that fall just within “autistic spectrum disorder” rather than just outside such a diagnosis.

It might be interesting to do a comparison of diagnosis rates in places with differing insurance coverages.

PernaLonga said...

Ah, thank you for the clarification (Janka and Neuroskeptic)! That does make quite a difference.

I still do not know how I feel about this particular method of data collection (respectfully recognizing as NS mentioned that there is no viable/realistic alternative for compiling data on such a population)

Janka said...

Personally, having worked in child psychiatry a little bit, I consider "ask the parents" a fairly good screening method. You will miss some, and catch some unnecessarily, but my hunch is that it is generally very reliable.

In addition, the questions in CAST are such that the parents already know them and are easy to answer about a child you know, so I would not worry about putting undue stress on the family either (any more than participating in a study does, anyway, which is a whole other question anyway).

bsci said...

I just skimmed the study and I have two frustrations with it. First, they are assuming the non-respondents have the same autism diagnosis rate as the respondents to the survey. For a modest amount of money, they could have done personal followup on a subsample of the non-respondents to confirm that they have roughly the same distribution of CAST scores.

My second complaint is how this will be used as part of public health. There is a spectrum of autism and it's vital from the public education and treatment perspectives to get a better picture of where kids fall on the spectrum. If the rate is 1:68, but only 1:1000 have significant enough autism to affect day-to-day living without professional help, that's important to know. Hopefully they have this data form the same population and will publish it in future papers.

Neuroskeptic said...

bsci: Agreed, the non-compliance was a significant weakness, and they should have done something about that. I'm always annoyed when studies like this don't.

I also agree on your second point. They claim that all of the kids that they diagnosed had "significant" autism but of course there can be lots of different kinds of significance. There's significantly affecting someone's personal life but allowing them to function in school, significantly affecting someone's school performance but not so badly that they have to be sent to a special school, etc.

Stephanie Lynn Keil said...

Yes, I'm curious as to how "disabled" these apparently 1 in 64 people with an ASD are. If they are simply eccentric and can function perfectly well do they really need a diagnosis? If they can function well than according to the DSM they can't be diagnosed with an ASD because they don't meet this criteria:

"The disturbance causes clinically significant impairments in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning."

Obviously, it's different in other places but I think that if the condition is not disabling than a person cannot be said to have an Autism Spectrum DISORDER.

And if 1 in 64 people have an ASD than where are they? Do most children grow out of this awkward phase in their teens and become normal adults? I am not seeing 1 in 64 people with autism in real life. At the college where I live I see eccentric people who function perfectly fine. Could they then be said to have an ASD even though they are not disabled by it, unlike me?

I think this will only make the diagnosis of ASD meaningless and so those that are disabled by it, like myself, will not be taken seriously.

It should only be used when the condition is disabling. If you go by this ASDs are MUCH rarer than 1 in 150, as it is here in the US.

Neuroskeptic said...

Stephanie - I agree that whether someone is disabled is a very important thing to know, and this study unfortunately doesn't really tell us about that.

But "disabled" may be as difficult a term to apply as "autism"! Say someone manages to hold down a job, but they have a very restricted social life. Are they "disabled"? I don't know - it's a hard one.

And you might argue that all of the undiagnosed kids in this study can't have been disabled or they would have been diagnosed already. That's something to think about...