Cited by 419Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareDown syndrome and intellectual disability research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Comparison of Healthcare Experiences in Autistic and Non-Autistic Adults: A Cross-Sectional Online Survey Facilitated by an Academic-Community Partnership

Open access

Abstract

Background Little is known about the healthcare experiences of adults on the autism spectrum. Moreover, autistic adults have rarely been included as partners in autism research.Objective To compare the healthcare experiences of autistic and non-autistic adults via an online survey.Methods We used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to adapt survey instruments to be accessible to autistic adults and to conduct an online cross-sectional survey. We assessed preliminary psychometric data on the adapted scales. We used multivariate analyses to compare healthcare experiences of autistic and non-autistic participants.Results Four hundred and thirty-seven participants completed the survey (209 autistic, 228 non-autistic). All adapted scales had good to excellent internal consistency reliability (alpha 0.82-0.92) and strong construct validity. In multivariate analyses, after adjustment for demographic characteristics, health insurance, and overall health status, autistic adults reported lower satisfaction with patient-provider communication (beta coefficient -1.9, CI -2.9 to -0.9), general healthcare self-efficacy (beta coefficient -11.9, CI -14.0 to -8.6), and chronic condition self-efficacy (beta coefficient -4.5, CI -7.5 to -1.6); higher odds of unmet healthcare needs related to physical health (OR 1.9 CI 1.1-3.4), mental health (OR 2.2, CI 1.3-3.7), and prescription medications (OR 2.8, CI 2.2-7.5); lower self-reported rates of tetanus vaccination (OR 0.5, CI 0.3-0.9) and Papanicolaou smears (OR 0.5, CI 0.2-0.9); and greater odds of using the emergency department (OR 2.1, CI 1.8-3.8).Conclusion A CBPR approach may facilitate the inclusion of people with disabilities in research by increasing researchers' ability to create accessible data collection instruments. Autistic adults who use the Internet report experiencing significant healthcare disparities. Efforts are needed to improve the healthcare of autistic individuals, including individuals who may be potentially perceived as having fewer disability-related needs.

Overview

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 · 10.1007/s11606-012-2262-7

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Biever C. Web removes social barriers for those with autism. New Scientist. 2007;2610:26–7.
  2. Nicolaidis C, Raymaker D, McDonald K, et al. Collaboration strategies in non-traditional CBPR partnerships: lessons from an academic-community partnership with autistic self-advocates. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action. In press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 419

Metadata

Authors
Nicolaidis, C., Raymaker, D., McDonald, K., Dern, S., Boisclair, W. C., Ashkenazy, E., & Baggs, A.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Syracuse University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Nicolaidis, Christina
  • Raymaker, Dora
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2012-11-21
Volume
28
Issue
6
Pages
761-769
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W1999004010
Cited by
419
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 47 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 7
FWCI
5.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PDXScholar (Portland State University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR000128, RR024140)
  • Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute (UL1RR024140, RR024140)
  • National Center for Research Resources (UL1RR024140)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Down syndrome and intellectual disability research
Keywords
autistic adults, patient experience, patient-provider communication, unmet health needs, mental health services, physical health care, vaccination, emergency department utilization, health care disparities, community-based participatory research
MeSH terms
Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Attitude to Health, Autistic Disorder, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Online Systems, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychometrics, Socioeconomic Factors, United States, Patient Satisfaction, Health Care Surveys, Self Efficacy, Needs Assessment, Healthcare Disparities, Community-Based Participatory Research, Young Adult

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