Group E-newsletter: How a lot do therapists learn about autism, reactions to a rogue stem cell trial | Spectrum
Illustration by Laurène Boglio
Hello and welcome to the community newsletter! I am your host, Chelsey B. Coombs, the engagement editor of Spectrum.
What do psychotherapists treating adults know about autism? A thread on a study on autism this week offered some insight.
A blind spot in psychiatry? A study by a participatory autism research group provides insight into the knowledge and expertise of psychotherapists in the treatment of autistic adults.
https://t.co/xMO1eNFvMS
– Autism Journal (@journalautism) December 8, 2021
Autistic adults are often dissatisfied with their therapists’ lack of knowledge about the condition, as previous research shows, and this gap is the most commonly reported barrier to accessing treatment. For the new work, 498 psychotherapists in Germany rated their training on autism and their competence in diagnosing and treating autistic people in comparison to people with other diseases such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder or depression.
The therapists rated their knowledge and skills lower in autism than in any other condition. On average, they got just 8 out of 14 general knowledge questions correctly, and many had outdated views, the researchers found. For example, 43 percent said they believe vaccines cause autism, an idea that has long been thoroughly debunked.
Of those who said they were reluctant to treat autistic people, the majority, 70 percent, said they didn’t know enough about the condition and 55 percent said they would refer an autistic person to a colleague with special or additional training.
Formal and continuing education for psychotherapists should include more information about autism, the researchers suggest.
Ty B. Aller, a staff member at the National Mental Health and Developmental Disorders Training Center, tweeted that these results underscore why the center was founded in the first place.
Great article worth reading. The results are a little terrifying, but not surprising. For this reason we helped shape @MHDDcenter! A lot to do. https://t.co/Y03smNl1yY
– Ty B. Aller, PhD, LMFT (er / er) (@Allertalk) December 3, 2021
Sara Luterman, nursing reporter at The 19th, editor at Radiolab and a member of Spectrum’s advisory board, tweeted that therapists turned her down because of her diagnosis of autism.
I was turned away by prospective therapists because my autism diagnosis was “too complicated” for them. This type of research is so, so important. Autistic adults need better access to mental health care and mental health professionals need more education. https://t.co/J2x2vFkOIA
– Sara Luterman (@slooterman) December 7, 2021
Spectrum’s story of the failures of a stem cell study, described in Frontiers in Pediatrics in October, received a strong online response. A team in Austria injected four autistic children with stem cells taken from the children’s bone marrow. The study was not subjected to any ethical review; it has not been approved by an institutional audit committee; and the researchers did not disclose their connections with a clinic that sells the unproven therapy or the fact that the study participants’ parents paid to have their children participate in the study.
Noah Sasson, professor and program director of psychology at the University of Texas at Dallas, asked why the journal published the study in the first place.
Just awful. No IRB approval, COIs galore, harmful and invasive, no scientific justification.
Why publish these @FrontPediatrics? https://t.co/zr9ouoAbEU
– Noah Sasson (@Noahsasson) December 12, 2021
Kevin Mitchell, Associate Professor of Genetics and Neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin, Ireland, wrote a thread on what he called “the most unethical, unjustifiable clinical ‘research’ I have seen on autism”.
Jesus, this is one of the most unethical, unjustified clinical “research” I’ve seen on autism … https://t.co/VKmtEGyNDo
– Kevin Mitchell (@WiringTheBrain) December 11, 2021
Mitchell added, “What possible justification could there be for doing something so invasive and dangerous, and scientifically so damned random?”
What possible justification could there be for doing something so invasive and dangerous and so damn random from a scientific point of view?
– Kevin Mitchell (@WiringTheBrain) December 11, 2021
Dorothy Bishop, a professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford University in the UK, replied to Mitchell, saying she was glad the researchers didn’t get away with the “shocking” research.
That’s shocking, but I’m very glad that the “researchers” didn’t get away with it.
I was amazed to find out 10 years ago that you could get IRB approval in the US for “studies” where participants had to pay for treatment. https://t.co/KpgSmCEDRr
– Dorothy Bishop (@deevybee) December 11, 2021
That’s it for this week’s community newsletter! If you have any suggestions for interesting social contributions in the field of autism research, feel free to email me at chelsey@spectrumnews.org.