Repository logo
 

Occupational Therapy and Arts Therapies

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://eresearch.qmu.ac.uk/handle/20.500.12289/25

Browse

Author: search.filters.author.Boilson, MarieSubject: search.filters.subject.Neurodevelopmental

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Waiting Times and Influencing Factors in Children and Adults Undergoing Assessment for Autism, ADHD, and Other Neurodevelopmental Differences
    (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2025-02-24) Maciver, Donald; Roy, Anusua Singh; Johnston, Lorna; Boilson, Marie; Curnow, Eleanor; Johnstone‐Cooke, Victoria; Rutherford, Marion
    This study explored waiting times and the factors influencing them in child and adult populations undergoing assessment for autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental differences. The analysis focused on a retrospective review of 408 cases with assessments completed between October 2021 and May 2022, conducted by 30 diagnosing teams in Scotland. Data included age, final diagnosis, demographics, medical and developmental history, contact frequency, and assessment service adherence to best‐practice standards. Waiting times were calculated, and relationships were analyzed using linear regression. Median waiting times were 525 days (IQR 329–857) for children/adolescents and 252 days (IQR 106–611) for adults. Only 20% of children's and 47% of adult assessments met the proposed 252‐day diagnostic time target. Autism and ADHD were the most common diagnoses. Receiving > 1 neurodevelopmental diagnosis on completion was uncommon. Demographic factors did not significantly affect waiting times. Children/adolescents with more complex developmental and medical histories experienced longer waits (100.3 weeks vs. 67.7 weeks; p < 0.001), while adults with similar histories had shorter waits (32.7 weeks vs. 57.4 weeks; p = 0.016). Adults with ADHD experienced longer waits than autistic adults (63.4 weeks vs. 38.6 weeks, p = 0.002). Adherence to best‐practice quality standards was associated with shorter waits for children (β = 0.27, p = 0.002), but the relationship between standard adherence at different stages and for adults was less clear. More frequent appointments correlated with shorter adult waits (33.7 weeks vs. 59.2 weeks, p = 0.015). Gender distribution was balanced among adults, but children's services included more boys. The study highlights long waits and the need for improvement in processes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An interdisciplinary nationwide complex intervention for lifespan neurodevelopmental service development: Underpinning principles and realist programme theory
    (Frontiers Media, 2023-01-30) Maciver, Donald; Rutherford, Marion; Johnston, Lorna; Curnow, Eleanor; Boilson, Marie; Murray, Mairéad
    Background: People seeking support for neurodevelopmental differences often report waiting too long for assessment and diagnosis, as well as receiving inadequate support in educational and health settings. The National Autism Implementation Team (NAIT) developed a new national improvement programme in Scotland, focusing on assessment, diagnosis, educational inclusion, and professional learning. The NAIT programme was conducted within health and education services across the lifespan for a range of neurodevelopmental differences, including autism, developmental coordination disorder, developmental language disorder, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. NAIT included a multidisciplinary team, with the involvement of an expert stakeholder group, clinicians, teachers, and people with lived experience. This study explores how the NAIT programme was planned, delivered, and received over three years. Design: We performed a retrospective evaluation. We collected data from review of programme documents, consultation with programme leads and consultation with professional stakeholders. A theory-based analysis was completed, drawing on the Medical Research Council Framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions, and realist analysis methods. We developed a programme theory of the contexts (C), mechanisms (M), and outcomes (O) influencing the NAIT programme, based on comparison and synthesis of evidence. A key focus was on identifying the factors that contributed to the successful implementation of NAIT activities across different domains, including practitioner, institutional and macro levels. Results: On synthesis of the data, we identified the key principles underlying the NAIT programme, the activities and resources utilised by the NAIT team, 16 aspects of context, 13 mechanisms, and 17 outcome areas. Mechanisms and outcomes were grouped at practitioner level, service level and macro level. The programme theory is pertinent to observed practice changes across all stages of referral, diagnosis and support processes within health and education services for neurodivergent children and adults. Conclusions: This theory-informed evaluation has resulted in a clearer and more replicable programme theory that can be used by others with similar aims. This paper illustrates the value of NAIT, as well as realist and complex interventions methodologies as tools for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers.