Autistic people have a high likelihood of developing mental health difficulties but a low chance of receiving effective mental healthcare. Therefore, there is a need to identify and examine strategies to improve mental healthcare for autistic people.

To identify strategies that have been implemented to improve access, experiences of care and mental health outcomes for autistic adults, and to examine evidence on their acceptability, feasibility and effectiveness.

A co-produced systematic review was conducted. MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, medRxiv and PsyArXiv were searched. We included all study designs reporting acceptability or feasibility outcomes and empirical quantitative study designs reporting effectiveness outcomes. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach.

A total of 30 articles were identified. These included 16 studies of adapted mental health interventions, eight studies of service improvements and six studies of bespoke mental health interventions developed for autistic people. There was no conclusive evidence on effectiveness. However, most bespoke and adapted approaches appeared to be feasible and acceptable. Identified adaptations appeared to be acceptable and feasible, including increasing knowledge and detection of autism, providing environmental adjustments and communication accommodations, accommodating individual differences and modifying the structure and content of interventions.

Many identified strategies are feasible and acceptable, and can be readily implemented in services with the potential to make mental healthcare more suitable for autistic people, but important research gaps remain. Future research should address these and investigate a co-produced package of service improvement measures.

The ability to generate, plan for, and follow through with goals is essential to everyday functioning. Compared to young adults, cognitively normal older adults have more difficulty on a variety of cognitive functions that contribute to goal setting and follow through. However, how these age-related cognitive differences impact real-world goal planning and success remains unclear. In the current study, we aimed to better understand the impact of older age on everyday goal planning and success.

Cognitively normal young adults (18-35 years, n= 57) and older adults (60-80 years, n= 49) participated in a 10-day 2-session study. In the first session, participants described 4 real-world goals that they hoped to pursue in the next 10 days. These goals were subjectively rated for personal significance, significance to others, and vividness, and goal descriptions were objectively scored for temporal, spatial, and event specificity, among other measures. Ten days later, participants rated the degree to which they planned for and made progress in their real-world goals since session one. Older adults also completed a battery of neuropsychological tests.

Some key results are as follows. Relative to the young adults, cognitively normal older adults described real-world goals which navigated smaller spaces (p=0.01) and that they perceived as more important to other people (p=0.03). Older adults also planned more during the 10-day window (p<0.001). There was not a statistically significant age group difference, however, in real-world goal progress (p=0.65). Nonetheless, among older participants, goal progress was related to higher mental processing speed as shown by the Trail Making Test Part A (r=0.36, p=0.02) and the creation of goals confined to specific temporal periods (r=0.35, p=0.01). Older participants who scored lower on the Rey Complex Figure Test (RCFT) long delay recall trial reported that their goals were more like ones that they had set in the past (r= -0.34, p=0.02), and higher episodic memory as shown by the RCFT was associated with more spatially specific goals (r=0.32, p=0.02), as well as a greater use of implementation intentions in goal descriptions(r=0.35, p=0.02).

Although older adults tend to show decline in several cognitive domains relevant to goal setting, we found that cognitively normal older adults did not make significantly less progress toward a series of real-world goals over a 10-day window. However, relative to young adults, older adults tended to pursue goals which were more important to others, as well as goals that involved navigating smaller spaces. Older adults also appear to rely on planning more than young adults to make progress toward their goals. These findings reveal age group differences in the quality of goals and individual differences in goal success among older adults. They are also in line with prior research suggesting that cognitive aging effects may be more subtle in real-world contexts.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted lives and livelihoods, and people already experiencing mental ill health may have been especially vulnerable.

Quantify mental health inequalities in disruptions to healthcare, economic activity and housing.

We examined data from 59 482 participants in 12 UK longitudinal studies with data collected before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Within each study, we estimated the association between psychological distress assessed pre-pandemic and disruptions since the start of the pandemic to healthcare (medication access, procedures or appointments), economic activity (employment, income or working hours) and housing (change of address or household composition). Estimates were pooled across studies.

Across the analysed data-sets, 28% to 77% of participants experienced at least one disruption, with 2.3–33.2% experiencing disruptions in two or more domains. We found 1 s.d. higher pre-pandemic psychological distress was associated with (a) increased odds of any healthcare disruptions (odds ratio (OR) 1.30, 95% CI 1.20–1.40), with fully adjusted odds ratios ranging from 1.24 (95% CI 1.09–1.41) for disruption to procedures to 1.33 (95% CI 1.20–1.49) for disruptions to prescriptions or medication access; (b) loss of employment (odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.06–1.21) and income (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.06 –1.19), and reductions in working hours/furlough (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 1.00–1.09) and (c) increased likelihood of experiencing a disruption in at least two domains (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18–1.32) or in one domain (OR 1.11, 95% CI 1.07–1.16), relative to no disruption. There were no associations with housing disruptions (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97–1.03).

People experiencing psychological distress pre-pandemic were more likely to experience healthcare and economic disruptions, and clusters of disruptions across multiple domains during the pandemic. Failing to address these disruptions risks further widening mental health inequalities.

To determine the impact of electronic health record (EHR)–based interventions and test restriction on Clostridioides difficile tests (CDTs) and hospital-onset C. difficile infection (HO-CDI).

Quasi-experimental study in 3 hospitals.

957-bed academic (hospital A), 354-bed (hospital B), and 175-bed (hospital C) academic-affiliated community hospitals.

Three EHR-based interventions were sequentially implemented: (1) alert when ordering a CDT if laxatives administered within 24 hours (January 2018); (2) cancellation of CDT orders after 24 hours (October 2018); (3) contextual rule-driven order questions requiring justification when laxative administered or lack of EHR documentation of diarrhea (July 2019). In February 2019, hospital C implemented a gatekeeper intervention requiring approval for all CDTs after hospital day 3. The impact of the interventions on C. difficile testing and HO-CDI rates was estimated using an interrupted time-series analysis.

C. difficile testing was already declining in the preintervention period (annual change in incidence rate [IR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.72–0.87) and did not decrease further with the EHR interventions. The laxative alert was temporally associated with a trend reduction in HO-CDI (annual change in IR from baseline, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75–0.96) at hospitals A and B. The gatekeeper intervention at hospital C was associated with level (IRR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.42-0.60) and trend reductions in C. difficile testing (annual change in IR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85–0.98) and level (IRR 0.42; 95% CI, 0.22–0.81) and trend reductions in HO-CDI (annual change in IR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.92) relative to the baseline period.

Test restriction was more effective than EHR-based clinical decision support to reduce C. difficile testing in our 3-hospital system.

Demonstrating the value of medicines through health technology assessment (HTA) systems is becoming increasingly complex. Innovative therapies – such as immuno-oncology (IO) agents – are testing limits of methodological approaches in markets with established HTA systems. The objective of this study is to understand how requirements, approaches, and decision-making differ between select HTA agencies with a focus on specific PD-1/PD-L1 (programmed death receptor-1/programmed death-ligand 1) agents and cancer indications, and to describe how this variation impacts patient access. To achieve this objective, we conducted a detailed HTA dossier review for several recently launched IO products across Australia (AU), Canada (CA), France (FR), and the United Kingdom (UK).

Content experts reviewed HTA dossiers for pembrolizumab, nivolumab, and atezolizumab for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) first-line monotherapy, NSCLC combination therapy, and adjuvant melanoma. A systematic analytic framework was developed to understand best-practice methodology across systems. Information on submitted data, patient/expert input, and access decisions were extracted; key themes were identified and refined through workshop discussion, and probed further through blinded primary research with eight individuals with current or recent experience of HTA systems.

We identified six major elements of variation impacting decision-making: evidentiary expectations for biomarkers, use/impact of patient-centered data; use/impact of real-world data, acceptance of surrogate endpoints, approaches for clinical data extrapolation, and accepted time horizons. Considerable variation in time to access was observed; for pembrolizumab (NSCLC first-line monotherapy), time from product registration to HTA decision ranged from 42 (CA) to 487 (AU) days; time from registration to listing ranged from 189 (CA) to 605 (AU) days.

Evaluated HTA systems demonstrate a large degree of variability in approaches to decision-making for novel IO medicines; resultant access decisions and time to access are also highly variable. Inconsistency between systems and duplication of effort when assessing similar clinical/economic data could be contributing to limited or delayed patient access; the relationship merits further exploration. Assessed HTA systems are currently undergoing process revisions but expert input suggests that this is not expected to reduce variation, and could further increase complexity. The influence of parallel scientific advice programs between HTA agencies and regulatory bodies in reducing variation must also be determined.