Cited by 25Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchElectronic Health Records SystemsChild Nutrition and Feeding Issues

Effect of a Computer-Based Decision Support Intervention on Autism Spectrum Disorder Screening in Pediatric Primary Care Clinics: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Open access
Downs, Stephen M., Bauer, Nerissa S., Saha, Chandan, Ofner, Susan, Carroll, Aaron E.·2019·JAMA Network Open

Abstract

Importance: Universal early screening for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is recommended but not routinely performed. Objective: To determine whether computer-automated screening and clinical decision support can improve ASD screening rates in pediatric primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, conducted between November 16, 2010, and November 21, 2012, compared ASD screening rates among a random sample of 274 children aged 18 to 24 months in urban pediatric clinics of an inner-city county hospital system with or without an ASD screening module built into an existing decision support software system. Statistical analyses were conducted from February 6, 2017, to June 1, 2018. Interventions: Four clinics were matched in pairs based on patient volume and race/ethnicity, then randomized within pairs. Decision support with the Child Health Improvement Through Computer Automation system (CHICA) was integrated with workflow and with the electronic health record in intervention clinics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was screening rates among children aged 18 to 24 months. Because the intervention was discontinued among children aged 18 months at the request of the participating clinics, only results for those aged 24 months were collected and analyzed. Rates of positive screening results, clinicians' response rates to screening results in the computer system, and new cases of ASD identified were also measured. Main results were controlled for race/ethnicity and intracluster correlation. Results: Two clinics were randomized to receive the intervention, and 2 served as controls. Records from 274 children (101 girls, 162 boys, and 11 missing information on sex; age range, 23-30 months) were reviewed (138 in the intervention clinics and 136 in the control clinics). Of 263 children, 242 (92.0%) were enrolled in Medicaid, 138 (52.5%) were African American, and 96 (36.5%) were Hispanic. Screening rates in the intervention clinics increased from 0% (95% CI, 0%-5.5%) at baseline to 68.4% (13 of 19) (95% CI, 43.4%-87.4%) in 6 months and to 100% (18 of 18) (95% CI, 81.5%-100%) in 24 months. Control clinics had no significant increase in screening rates (baseline, 7 of 64 children [10.9%]; 6-24 months after the intervention, 11 of 72 children [15.3%]; P = .46). Screening results were positive for 265 of 980 children (27.0%) screened by CHICA during the study period. Among the 265 patients with positive screening results, physicians indicated any response in CHICA in 151 (57.0%). Two children in the intervention group received a new diagnosis of ASD within the time frame of the study. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that computer automation, when integrated with clinical workflow and the electronic health record, increases screening of children for ASD, but follow-up by physicians is still flawed. Automation of the subsequent workup is still needed. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01612897.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.17676

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Referrals for evaluation and intervention for children who screen at higher likelihood of autism remain low.

    “Specifically, referrals for evaluation and intervention for children who screen at higher likelihood of autism remain low (Downs et al., 2019; Monteiro et al., 2019).”

    From Navigating the Challenges: A Commentary on Barriers to Autism Screening in Childcare Centers (2026) · cites this paper as Downs et al., 2019

    The Results (Effects of CHICA on ASD Screening; page unavailable) report that only 52 of 151 children whose physicians responded to a positive screen were referred for ASD evaluation, supporting the claim that evaluation referrals were low. The paper does not report referral rates for intervention services, so that part of the claim is not supported by our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 40 · Cited by 25

Authors
Downs, S. M., Bauer, N. S., Saha, C., Ofner, S., & Carroll, A. E.
Affiliations
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • Axon Health Associates LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
Corresponding author
Downs, Stephen M.
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Published
2019-12-18
Volume
2
Issue
12
Pages
e1917676
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2996181411
Cited by
25
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 1
FWCI
1.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PMC
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS018453)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Child Nutrition and Feeding Issues
Keywords
autism spectrum disorder, autism screening, clinical decision support, pediatric primary care, early childhood screening, electronic health record integration, screening rates, Medicaid
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Child Development, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Primary Health Care, Risk Factors, United States, Decision Support Systems, Clinical, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review