Use of Telehealth for Facilitating the Diagnostic Assessment of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD): A Scoping Review
PLoS One
Alfuraydan, M., Croxall, J., et al. (2020).
PLoS One, 15(7), e0236415.
This scoping review investigates the acceptability, feasibility, and accuracy of assessments used in the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder that are conducted via telepractice as compared to face-to-face.
Saudi Arabia Cultural Bureau (United Kingdom)
From January 2000 to December 2019
Primary studies of any design
10
<div>Three studies used videoconferencing as a real-time method of assessment. The diagnosis assessment agreed with the evaluation team diagnosis 82.5% of the time for face-to-face assessment and 86% for videoconference assessment. No significant differences were found between ratings for the ADI-R and ADOS observations. With videoconferencing, access improved and diagnostic services increased for families in rural and underserved areas. Clinicians were "certain" or "very certain" of their telehealth assessments in 86% of cases but would rather to assess a child using an in-person assessment 24% of the time for more complex cases.</div>
<div>Two studies investigated the Versatile and Integrated System for Tele-rehabilitation (VISYTER) to assess adults. The results supported using telehealth to conduct the ADOS via telepractice, though some areas may be harder to assess remotely.</div>
<div>Parents were equally satisfied with videoconferencing and face-to-face assessment. One study found that 98% of caregivers were very satisfied with their experience of telepractice.</div>
<div>For adults, the majority of participants had no preference for remote vs. face-to-face using VISYTER in the administration of the ADOS. Patients were overall satisfied and comfortable with the system, though acceptability was scored as 5.86/7.</div>
<div>Three studies used the Naturalistic Observation Diagnostic Assessment (NODA) and the store-and-forward method. According to clinicians, 96% of videos recorded by parents were clinically useful. In one study, 10 out of 11 of the assessments were given a diagnosis that matched the previous diagnosis. In another, when NODA was compared to in-person assessment, diagnostic agreement was 88.2%, sensitivity was 84.5%, and specificity was 94.4% for children with an autism diagnosis. The Kappa coefficients for inter-rater reliability yielded 85% to 90% accuracy between raters.</div>
<div>Parents reported ease-of-use as 4/5 for NODA via the store-and-forward method. Forty out of 44 parents positively rated the system's usability.</div>
