Understanding autism diagnosis in primary care: Rates of diagnosis from 2004 to 2019 and child age at diagnosis

Abstract

The capacity of the workforce lags behind the current demand for timely autism diagnostic assessment. Primary care providers (PCPs) are well-positioned to diagnose autism at earlier ages than providers from other disciplines. Thus, bolstering PCPs’ diagnostic capabilities has been the focus of many recent capacity-building initiatives. Using data from the National Survey of Children’s Health, this study aimed to evaluate whether diagnosis of autism in primary care has changed over time and whether diagnosis in primary care relates to age at autism diagnosis. Results indicated that the likelihood of being diagnosed with autism by a PCP decreased by about 2% with every passing year from 2004 to 2019 when controlling for demographic characteristics. PCPs diagnosed children approximately 1 year earlier than non-PCPs (e.g., psychiatrists and psychologists), which supports the critical role PCPs can play in timely diagnosis. Further research is needed to understand why the proportion of children diagnosed by PCPs has decreased over time; however, these findings suggest that capacity-building initiatives have not yet reached community practice. Future research should focus on the dissemination and implementation of training initiatives in community-based primary care practices.

Lay abstract

The current demand for autism diagnostic services exceeds the ability of the workforce to assess and diagnose children in a timely manner. One solution may be to equip primary care providers (PCPs) with the tools and expertise needed to diagnose autism within their practice. PCPs are often trusted professionals who have many touchpoints with children during early development, in which they can identify early signs of autism. Recent initiatives have focused on bolstering PCPs’ diagnostic capabilities; however, no studies have examined how the rates of autism diagnosis in primary care have changed over time. We aimed to evaluate whether autism diagnosis in primary care has changed over time and how diagnosis in primary care relates to a child’s age at the time of diagnosis. We found that the likelihood of a child being diagnosed by a PCP decreased by about 2% with every passing year from 2004 to 2019 when accounting for demographic characteristics. In our sample, PCPs diagnosed children approximately 1 year earlier than non-PCPs (e.g., psychologists and psychiatrists). Further research is needed to understand why the proportion of children diagnosed by PCPs decreases over time. However, this decrease suggests more work is needed to get capacity-building initiatives into community primary care practice. Though we must continue to find effective ways to build community PCPs’ ability to diagnose autism, the present findings support the crucial role PCPs can play in early autism diagnosis.

Keywords

age at diagnosis autism capacity-building diagnostic timing early identification primary care

There is considerable heterogeneity among the 1 in 36 children with autism spectrum disorder (hereby referred to as “autism”) in the United States (American Psychiatric Association, 2022; Maenner et al., 2023) with respect to core diagnostic features, communication style, adaptive functioning, intellectual functioning, and co-occurring conditions (Masi et al., 2017; Rosen et al., 2018). This hallmark heterogeneity presents clinical challenges to the diagnostic process, as there is no one sole autism presentation. Thus, detection and diagnosis of autism requires expertise.

Best practice protocols for autism diagnosis recommend the use of a multidisciplinary team to aid in the diagnostic process by allowing for multiple lenses through which a presenting child’s unique profile can be viewed (Penner, Anagnostou, Andoni, et al., 2018). While ideal, multidisciplinary teams are resource-intensive, and clinicians often must assess children independently (Penner, Anagnostou, & Ungar, 2018). When assessing for autism, clinicians primarily use The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria, expert clinical judgment, and, in many cases, standardized diagnostic tools such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (Lord et al., 2012) and the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (Lord et al., 1994). Many of these diagnostic tools require extensive training to reach clinical proficiency and reliability, often limiting their use to professionals practicing in specialized autism centers or academic medical settings. Thus, the traditional diagnostic process is time- and resource-intensive. Compounding this problem is a widespread shortage of clinicians with expertise in autism diagnosis, including developmental-behavioral pediatricians and psychologists specializing in autism (Bridgemohan et al., 2018; Ning et al., 2019).

The high level of resources needed to effectively diagnose paired with the rising prevalence of autism has contributed to the “waitlist crisis” in which many families find themselves (Kanne & Bishop, 2021; Makino et al., 2021; Siklos & Kerns, 2007; Wong et al., 2017). This crisis is characterized by the extensive waitlists in the United States to receive a diagnostic evaluation from a provider (Kanne & Bishop, 2021). Caregivers describe the service navigation process as a “diagnostic odyssey” that begins with the identification of autism symptoms (Lappé et al., 2018), requires multiple appointments with providers, and results in a considerable gap between caregiver’s first concern and the receipt of a diagnosis (MacKenzie et al., 2022). Both the researcher-deemed “crisis” (Kanne & Bishop, 2021) and caregiver-deemed “odyssey” (Lappé et al., 2018) result from the same fundamental challenge: The capacity of autism specialists lags far behind the demand for timely diagnoses.

In an effort to curb this crisis, there have been growing calls to expand the capacity of a broader range of professionals and disciplines to identify autism (Gordon-Lipkin et al., 2016; Zwaigenbaum & Warren, 2021). While psychologists continue to diagnose autism at greater rates than other providers (MacKenzie et al., 2022), many recent capacity-building initiatives focus on leveraging the diagnostic capabilities of primary care providers (PCPs) to identify autism rather than the traditional pathway of referring children to a specialty clinic with lengthy waitlists (Mazurek et al., 2019; Wieckowski et al., 2022; Zuckerman et al., 2021). PCPs are well-positioned to identify autism, as they are trusted community-based healthcare professionals who have ongoing and regular opportunities to monitor a child’s development across infancy, toddlerhood, and early childhood. In fact, studies from the United States and other Western countries highlight that caregivers often express their first concern to a physician, such as a pediatrician or general practitioner (Chamak & Bonniau, 2013; Chamak et al., 2011; Karim et al., 2014; MacKenzie et al., 2022). In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) released guidance in 2007 that recommended routine surveillance and standardized universal screening for autism-related symptoms during well-child visits, or visits with a pediatrician in which developmental progress is monitored at regular intervals (Myers et al., 2007). This guidance was reiterated and updated in 2020 (Hyman et al., 2020); however, these practices are implemented inconsistently (Mazurek et al., 2021; Wallis et al., 2020).

Findings from a systematic review suggest that capacity-building initiatives centered around training PCPs to use standardized screening or diagnostic protocols can promote the implementation of screening and diagnostic practices in routine primary care and bolster provider self-efficacy in identifying autism (Guan et al., 2022). Examples of such initiatives include programs such as START-ED (Warren et al., 2009), ECHO Autism (Bellesheim et al., 2020; Mazurek et al., 2017), and ECHO Autism STAT (Mazurek et al., 2019) that train PCPs to use standardized screening or diagnostic tools and employ diagnostic decision-making frameworks (Guan et al., 2022). Most evidence from these and related initiatives suggests that, in the majority of cases, PCP-provided diagnoses were consistent with the diagnostic decision of a multidisciplinary team or independent evaluation using standardized tools (Ahlers et al., 2019; Guan et al., 2022; Mcclure et al., 2010; Sohl et al., 2023). However, findings from one capacity-building initiative indicated that pediatricians may misclassify individuals without ongoing support and training (Warren et al., 2009). Evaluation of the effectiveness of these training initiatives to date has been based on pilot studies; thus, more research in this area is needed.

In addition to improved provider self-efficacy and diagnostic accuracy, outcomes from studies of physician training indicate an approximate 50% reduction in time to diagnosis (Ahlers et al., 2019; Harrison et al., 2017). The reduction in time from first concern to diagnosis does more than just alleviate pressure on the current diagnostic system. Timely receipt of an autism diagnosis is crucial to optimize developmental and mental health outcomes. A formal diagnosis is often required for access to treatment services (Jacobs et al., 2018; Lappé et al., 2018), and receiving autism treatment services within the first few years of life enhances positive developmental outcomes (Dawson, 2008; Zwaigenbaum et al., 2015). Though diagnoses can be made beginning at around 18 months of age (Hyman et al., 2020), the mean diagnostic age in the United States is around 4 years of age (Maenner et al., 2023). Many factors contribute to later diagnosis including being assigned female at birth, presenting with a more nuanced phenotypic profile (e.g., better social skills and higher verbal IQ), or being of lower socioeconomic status (Daniels & Mandell, 2014; Loubersac et al., 2023).

Conversely, one factor contributing to earlier diagnosis is attendance at primary care appointments. Attendance at well-child visits (Daniels & Mandell, 2013; DeGuzman et al., 2022) and being screened in primary care relates to an earlier age at diagnosis (Carbone et al., 2020; Hine et al., 2020) and thus swifter entry into treatment, like the early intervention system in the United States. The AAP recommends 14 well-child visits before the age of 4 years old, which provides numerous opportunities for the early identification of autism (Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine & Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule Workgroup, 2023). Taken together, primary care is a vital setting to understand in relation to autism diagnosis.

Despite the crucial position of primary care in autism identification and recent efforts focused on increasing autism screening and diagnostic practices among PCPs, to date, no studies have characterized how the rate of PCPs diagnosing autism has changed over time. In turn, this study aimed to understand how diagnosis of autism in primary care has changed over time and how diagnosis in primary care relates to age at diagnosis. We hypothesized:

Given recent capacity-building initiatives, the rate of PCPs diagnosing autism has increased over time.

PCPs diagnose autism at earlier ages than non-PCPs.

Methods

Participants

Data from the 2016–2021 waves of the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) were used (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021) for secondary analysis in the current study. The NSCH is a nationally representative caregiver-report survey of the health and well-being of children (birth to 17 years) in the United States. Each wave of the NSCH weights survey data to represent the population of noninstitutionalized children who live in housing units in each state and nationally. While 225,443 caregivers completed the NSCH over the 6 waves, the present sample (n = 5296) is limited to children with a caregiver-reported diagnosis of autism who met the inclusion criteria outlined below.

Children were excluded if their caregiver did not list a provider who first diagnosed their child’s autism (e.g., “don’t know”) and/or were unable to provide an age at which their child was first diagnosed. Due to the rapidly changing diagnostic landscape as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic (see Zwaigenbaum et al., 2021), children were excluded if their autism diagnosis took place after 2019. See Table 1 for the final sample’s full demographic information.

Table 1.

Sample demographic information (n = 5171).

	M (SD)/frequency	Group comparisons (PCP/non-PCP)
Age at diagnosis (years)	5.13 (3.32) Range: 1–15	t(1174.04) = 10.86***
Age at survey completion (years)	11.07 (4.18) Range: 1–17	t(5170) = 4.02***
Race		χ² (6) = 15.45*
White	76.8%
Black	7.5%
American Indian or Alaska Native	0.9%
Asian alone	4.4%
Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone	0.4%
Some other race	0.9%
Multiracial	9.0%
Ethnicity		χ² (1) = 0.67
Hispanic/Latino,a,x	12.7%
Not Hispanic/Latino,a,x	87.3%
Child sex		χ² (1) = 0.23
Male	80.0%
Female	20.5%

Note. This table shows demographic characteristics for the final sample used in analyses. Group differences between those diagnosed by a primary care provider (PCP) and non-PCP were analyzed by demographic characteristics.

p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

Measures

Demographic information

Caregiver-reported child demographic information and relevant caregiver demographic information were collected through the NSCH (see Table 1), including child race, ethnicity, and sex.¹

Autism diagnosis

Caregiver respondents were asked if a healthcare professional had ever told them that their child had autism spectrum disorder, Asperger disorder, autistic disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS) (hereafter, “autism”). Children of caregivers who responded affirmatively were included in the present sample.

Diagnostic professional

Caregivers who responded affirmatively to their child having an autism diagnosis were asked to retroactively report on the type of doctor or other health care provider who was the first to tell them their child had autism. Response options were PCP, specialist, school psychologist/counselor, other psychologist (non-school), psychiatrist, other, or don’t know. For this study, responses were collapsed into PCP and non-PCP (encompassing all other response options, excluding “don’t know”).

Age of child and year at diagnosis

Consistent with previous research using the NSCH (Emerson et al., 2016; Goldblum et al., 2023; Hanley et al., 2021; Jo et al., 2015), age at diagnosis was determined by caregiver report of their child’s age when a doctor or health care provider first told them their child had autism. Year at diagnosis was computed by first calculating the difference between the child’s age when their caregiver completed the NSCH and the age at which they were diagnosed. This difference was then subtracted from the year at which their caregiver completed the NSCH survey.

Data analytic plan

Data were analyzed in SPSS, v27. Descriptive statistics were generated for the total sample. A preliminary review of these data indicated certain years at diagnosis had high leverage points, which coincided with years in which there were fewer than 100 respondents from analyses (years 2000–2003). These years were removed from analyses, and the sample size for analyses reported is 5171 (125 children less than the original sample; years at diagnosis range: 2004–2019). Removal of these cases did not change the trends of results.

Binary logistic regression was used to test the first hypothesis, in which the dependent variable was a binary variable of diagnostic provider (PCP vs. non-PCP), and the predictor variable was year at diagnosis; covariates included indicator variables for child race, ethnicity, and sex. Due to the nature of data collection being nonconcurrent with the time of diagnosis, the inclusion of meaningful covariates was limited to those that remain the same across time, specifically the aforementioned demographic characteristics. Inclusion of other covariates was not possible because of the possibility that participant characteristics may have changed from the time of diagnosis to the time of survey completion. For example, participants may have moved from the location in which they were first diagnosed, changed insurance plans, or experienced changes in autism characteristics due to maturity or receipt of services. Pearson χ² goodness-of-fit test was conducted to investigate model fit for binary logistic regression. For the second hypothesis, an independent samples t-test was used to assess group differences in age at diagnosis.

Community involvement statement

As these were secondary data analyses, there was no community involvement in this study.

Results

Rate of PCPs diagnosing autism over time

From 2004 to 2019, 14.3% of the sample was first diagnosed as having autism by their PCP. Results of the binary logistic regression to predict the likelihood of being diagnosed by a PCP over time, when controlling for demographic characteristics, suggest the year at which a child was diagnosed with autism was a negative and significant predictor of the probability of being diagnosed by a PCP (β = –0.02, Wald χ² = 5.17, p = 0.02). The odds of being diagnosed by a PCP decreased by about 2% with every passing year from 2004 to 2019 (odds ratio (OR) = 0.98, 95% confidence interval CI (0.96, 1.00)). See Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Proportion of children diagnosed by a primary care provider from 2004 to 2019 (n = 5171).

Relationship between diagnosing professional and age at diagnosis

Children whose autism was first diagnosed by a PCP were approximately 1 year younger at the time of diagnosis (M_PCP = 4.10, SD = 2.67) than those whose autism was first diagnosed in non-primary care settings (M_non-PCP = 5.30, SD = 3.38; t(1174.04) = 10.87, p < .001). See Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Age at autism diagnosis by provider type.

Discussion

To date, there has been no literature documenting how the types of providers diagnosing autism may have changed over time in the United States. Given burgeoning attention to the role PCPs can play in early autism diagnosis, the present study focused on how autism diagnosis in primary care has changed over time and how diagnosis in primary care relates to children’s age at autism diagnosis in the United States. Findings indicated a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of autism being first diagnosed by a PCP over time between 2004 and 2019. Though over one-tenth of caregivers reported their child was first diagnosed by a PCP, the proportion waxed and waned greatly from 2004 to 2019. Importantly, the present findings support the role PCPs play in early access to diagnosis, as age at first diagnosis of autism was approximately one year earlier among children whose autism was first diagnosed by their PCP as compared with non-PCPs.

This was the first study to describe changes in autism diagnosis in primary care over time. Results indicate about one-tenth of children with autism were first diagnosed by their PCP over the past 15 years. The proportion of children whose autism was diagnosed by PCPs in the present community-based sample is similar to that in a research-ascertained sample diagnosed within the past few years (MacKenzie et al., 2022). Over the past 15 years, guidance from the AAP has attempted to embed autism screening and surveillance into routine clinical practice, and more recent training initiatives have focused on increasing workforce knowledge and capacity to diagnose autism in primary care settings. However, the present findings suggest that these initiatives may not have yet achieved their goal.

Though the first AAP guidance for autism identification in pediatric primary care was published in 2007, this guidance was primarily focused on screening and surveillance. Although this is a first step toward a formal diagnosis, positive screening results require further diagnostic assessment. Findings from a systematic review highlight that four out of six PCP diagnostic trainings or initiatives were published in 2014 or after, and all published initiatives were in the pilot stage (Guan et al., 2022). The lag between research to clinical practice in health sciences is approximately 17 years to reach routine clinical practice (Morris et al., 2011). Though research on diagnostic training initiatives was conducted in community settings (Ahlers et al., 2019; Swanson et al., 2014), the present findings suggest that these initiatives have not yet been widely implemented or disseminated and have had limited reach to everyday clinical practice (as of 2019).

Patient-level factors may account for the decrease in the likelihood of being diagnosed by a PCP in everyday clinical practice. From 2004 to 2019, autism awareness and healthcare professionals’ understanding of different phenotypes has dramatically changed. In turn, PCPs in recent years may be more likely to refer subtle phenotypic presentations to other providers for autism evaluation than they would have in the past; however, due to the limitations of the present dataset, this hypothesis could not be formally tested. Increased awareness may also lead caregivers to pursue specialty autism centers rather than consultation with a PCP. However, PCP referrals are often required by autism clinics prior to scheduling diagnostic evaluations, and there is literature spanning across time to support that caregivers often voice their first concerns to their PCP (Chamak & Bonniau, 2013; Chamak et al., 2011; Karim et al., 2014; MacKenzie et al., 2022). It may be that caregivers voicing concerns to a PCP and making an appointment at a specialty center are not mutually exclusive. For instance, caregivers with a greater awareness of autism may make an appointment at a specialty autism center for a comprehensive evaluation and consult their PCP in their interim, given their accessibility.

Provider-level factors such as lack of autism-related knowledge and self-efficacy may have also contributed to the limited scope of autism diagnosis in primary care over time. A recent systematic review revealed that providers across disciplines show low levels of knowledge and self-efficacy in working with autistic individuals (Corden et al., 2022). Specifically, PCPs report low self-efficacy in working with autistic children (Mazurek et al., 2020), and limited autism training in medical school, which in turn makes many feel unqualified to make a diagnosis (Finke et al., 2010). Alternatively, in cases where PCPs felt qualified to diagnose autism, they felt the current system of care prevented them from making the diagnosis, coining the opaque system as a “black box” (Hamp et al., 2022). Future qualitative research is needed to better understand both patient- and provider-level factors contributing to autism diagnosis in primary care.

Enhancing self-efficacy and knowledge of autism and the complex system of care may be essential for scaling up the identification and diagnosis of autism in primary care. Prior studies have demonstrated the impact of provider self-efficacy on autism identification practices in primary care. In a study focused on screening practices, PCPs with prior autism training and greater self-efficacy in screening and identification were more likely to implement autism screening in their practice (Mazurek et al., 2021). In addition, one study found the use of a PCP learning community effectively increased provider self-efficacy and provider implementation of high-fidelity autism identification (Carbone et al., 2016). The same learning community was also effective at reducing the common barriers to screening that many providers cite, namely, the lack of time and resources to screen in primary care.

Screening is the first step in the diagnostic process and a critical step for PCPs in tiered diagnostic models. In such models, a PCP screens for autism as they would in routine practice, diagnoses clear-cut cases of autism, and refers more complex cases to specialty providers (Hyman et al., 2020; Wieckowski et al., 2022). Cases in which a PCP feels comfortable diagnosing autism without referral to a specialty provider are likely cases who have explicit diagnostic features of autism, also conceptualized as “frank” autism in the literature (de Marchena & Miller, 2017). On the contrary, pediatricians in a Canadian study found it more difficult to diagnose children with a milder presentation of autism, who were older, or who had co-occurring conditions (Penner et al., 2017), all of which are also contributors to being diagnosed later with autism (Daniels & Mandell, 2014). Consequently, through tiered diagnostic models, PCPs can confidently diagnose those with clear autism features, who are likely to present with less diagnostic challenges than those with more subtle or complex profiles. Such diagnoses in primary care could reduce the waitlist crisis by using referral pathways for more complex cases.

Diagnostic models such as the tiered approach may lead to increased capacity and its downstream benefits, namely, shorter time from first concern to a diagnosis, younger age at diagnosis, timely access to treatment services, and alleviation of pressure on the current diagnostic system by letting specialists focus on more complex diagnostic profiles. However, increasing the diagnostic workforce also requires careful consideration of the potential concern in expanding the diagnostic workforce to professionals without specialized expertise in autism. The largest concern is the potential for PCPs to misclassify autism, which was seen in previous trainings or initiatives (e.g., Warren et al., 2009). However, a recent prospective study of the concordance between diagnoses made by community pediatricians and multidisciplinary teams demonstrated a high concordance between the two groups and highlighted that the accuracy of diagnoses related to clinician certainty (Penner et al., 2023). These disparate findings highlight the need for training initiatives to investigate how and when PCPs can make a diagnosis of autism, and under what conditions that diagnosis is accurate.

Alternative ways to build capacity in primary care should also be considered, including those that do not rely on PCPs acting as the sole diagnostician. For example, another proposed way to build diagnostic capacity employs behavioral health providers embedded within primary care as diagnosticians (Hine et al., 2018, 2020). Within this model, upon positive screening of a child for autism, pediatricians quickly transfer the case to behavioral health providers who conduct further assessment, in effect reducing the time from first concern to diagnosis in primary care without the need for a PCP to be trained in diagnostic assessment. While integrating behavioral health into pediatric primary care holds tremendous promise, the current medical system remains siloed, and such integration requires well-resourced systems of care that may take time to curate.

Limitations

Several study limitations should be noted. First, this study utilized large-scale survey data, which presents unique strengths and limitations. While the sample was nationally representative and large, some of the survey questions lacked specificity. Specifically, caregivers were asked when and by whom they were first told their child had autism rather than asking specific questions about diagnostic evaluation and timing, which is more typical when probing for prior developmental or medical history. Previous research on diagnostic timing using the NSCH has also operationalized these variables as being related to the time of diagnosis; however, due to the wording of the question, it is possible that some caregivers reported the professional and age at the time that their child screened positive for autism or was given a provisional diagnosis to access services. In addition, some of the categories of professionals were opaque, including a “specialist” category without additional criteria. Considering this and the central focus of the study on PCPs, this study did not separate out those in the non-PCP group. Future research is needed to systematically examine how the capacity of all healthcare professions capable of diagnosis has shifted over time.

Due to the nature of the sample, inclusion of meaningful covariates such as whether or not someone lived in a rural area, what insurance type they had, or what diagnostic features they had were not possible, as these factors may have changed from the time of diagnosis to time of survey completion. It is likely the inclusion of these covariates would have had an impact on the present findings (DeGuzman et al., 2021); however, this study offers the first descriptive account of changing autism diagnosis rates in primary care over time. These findings may be useful in providing a baseline and informing more robust prospective studies in the future. In addition, these data were cross-sectional and retrospective, which impeded the ability to draw causal links between time and the likelihood of diagnosis by a PCP.

Finally, other factors changing over the course of 2004–2019 in the field could not be directly tested but should be noted in the interpretation of these results. Namely, the diagnostic criteria, prevalence rates, and understanding of autism have changed drastically over the course of the included 15-year period. With the change from DSM-IV to DSM-5 in 2013, autism diagnoses changed from separate but related diagnoses (e.g., PDD-NOS, Asperger’s, and autistic disorder) to one all-encompassing diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. The NSCH directly probes for diagnoses listed in both the DSM-IV and DSM-5 (e.g., Asperger’s, PDD-NOS, and autism spectrum disorder), thus children diagnosed using both criteria are included in the present sample. As the diagnostic criteria shifted, so did prevalence rates of autism from 1 in 125 in the year 2004 to 1 in 44 in 2018. The higher prevalence rate may be due to a multitude of factors, such as changes to the diagnostic criteria, more sensitive detection tools, and a better understanding of autism and its many clinical presentations across healthcare disciplines.

Conclusions

From 2004 to 2019, approximately one-tenth of children in the present sample were first diagnosed with autism by a PCP, and PCPs diagnosed autism earlier than their counterparts outside of primary care. The current results suggest a decrease in the likelihood of autism being first diagnosed by a PCP over time between 2004 and 2019. Autism training initiatives that focus on provider knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy may be the key needed to unlock a more expansive workforce, and future research should prioritize hybrid effectiveness-implementation evaluation of these trainings to identify factors that may promote uptake, dissemination, and reduced time from research to practice (Curran et al., 2012). Future research must also continue to monitor the effectiveness of such training models to ensure resultant accurate diagnoses of autism. Overall, the current results indicate that more widespread access to diagnosis in primary care settings may have the potential to greatly reduce diagnostic delays in the years to come.

Footnotes

Data availability statement

The National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) is conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Health Resources and Services Administration’s (HRSA) Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB). All data are available on the U.S. Census Bureau website:

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Jessica V Smith

Michelle Menezes

Sophie Brunt

Eleonora Sadikova

Micah O Mazurek

Notes

References

Ahlers

Gabrielsen

T. P.

Ellzey

Brady

Litchford

Fox

Nguyen

Q.-T.

Carbone

P. S.

(2019). A pilot project using pediatricians as initial diagnosticians in multidisciplinary autism evaluations for young children. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 40(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000621

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. https://dsm.psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787

Bellesheim

K. R.

Kizzee

R. L.

Curran

Sohl

(2020). ECHO Autism: Integrating maintenance of certification with extension for community healthcare outcomes improves developmental screening. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 41(6), 420–427. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000796

Bridgemohan

Bauer

N. S.

Nielsen

B. A.

DeBattista

Ruch-Ross

H. S.

Paul

L. B.

Roizen

(2018). A workforce survey on developmental-behavioral pediatrics. Pediatrics, 141(3), e20172164. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2017-2164

Carbone

P. S.

Campbell

Wilkes

Stoddard

G. J.

Huynh

Young

P. C.

Gabrielsen

T. P.

(2020). Primary care autism screening and later autism diagnosis. Pediatrics, 146(2), e20192314. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-2314

Carbone

P. S.

Norlin

Young

P. C.

(2016). Improving early identification and ongoing care of children with autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics, 137(6), e20151850. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2015-1850

Chamak

Bonniau

(2013). Changes in the diagnosis of autism: How parents and professionals act and react in France. Culture, Medicine, and Psychiatry, 37(3), 405–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-013-9323-1

Chamak

Bonniau

Oudaya

Ehrenberg

(2011). The autism diagnostic experiences of French parents. Autism, 15(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361309354756

Committee On Practice and Ambulatory Medicine & Bright Futures Periodicity Schedule Workgroup. (2023). 2023 recommendations for preventive pediatric health care. Pediatrics, 151(4), e2023061451. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2023-061451

10.

Corden

Brewer

Cage

(2022). A systematic review of healthcare professionals’ knowledge, self-efficacy and attitudes towards working with autistic people. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 9(3), 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-021-00263-w

11.

Curran

G. M.

Bauer

Mittman

Pyne

J. M.

Stetler

(2012). Effectiveness-implementation Hybrid Designs. Medical Care, 50(3), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812

12.

Daniels

A. M.

Mandell

D. S.

(2013). Children’s compliance with American Academy of Pediatrics’ well-child care visit guidelines and the early detection of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43(12), 2844–2854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-013-1831-x

13.

Daniels

A. M.

Mandell

D. S.

(2014). Explaining differences in age at autism spectrum disorder diagnosis: A critical review. Autism: The International Journal of Research and Practice, 18(5), 583–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313480277

14.

Dawson

(2008). Early behavioral intervention, brain plasticity, and the prevention of autism spectrum disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 20(3), 775–803. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000370

15.

DeGuzman

P. B.

Huang

Lyons

Snitzer

Keim-Malpass

(2021). Rural Disparities in early childhood well child visit attendance. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 58, 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2020.12.005

16.

DeGuzman

P. B.

Lyons

Huang

Keim-Malpass

Mazurek

M. O.

(2022). Statewide analysis reveals period of well-child visit attendance for earlier diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. The Journal of Pediatrics, 241, 181–187e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.09.028

17.

de Marchena

Miller

. (2017). “Frank” presentations as a novel research construct and element of diagnostic decision-making in autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 10(4), 653–662. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1706

18.

Emerson

N. D.

Morrell

H. E. R.

Neece

(2016). Predictors of age of diagnosis for children with autism spectrum disorder: The role of a consistent source of medical care, race, and condition severity. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(1), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-015-2555-x

19.

Finke

E. H.

Drager

K. D. R.

Ash

(2010). Pediatricians’ perspectives on identification and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8(3), 254–268. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476718X10366773

20.

Goldblum

J. E.

McFayden

T. C.

Bristol

Putnam

O. C.

Wylie

Harrop

. (2023). Autism prevalence and the intersectionality of assigned sex at birth, race, and ethnicity on age of diagnosis. Journal of autism and developmental disorders. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-023-06104-5

21.

Gordon-Lipkin

Foster

Peacock

(2016). Whittling down the wait time: Exploring models to minimize the delay from initial concern to diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 63(5), 851–859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pcl.2016.06.007

22.

Guan

Zwaigenbaum

Sonnenberg

L. K.

(2022). Building capacity for community pediatric autism diagnosis: A systemic review of physician training programs. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 43(1), 44–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000001042

23.

Hamp

DeHaan

S. L.

Cerf

C. M.

Radesky

J. S.

(2022). Primary care pediatricians’ perspectives on autism care. Pediatrics, 151(1), e2022057712. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2022-057712

24.

Hanley

Nguyen

Q. C.

Badawi

D. G.

Chen

Slopen

(2021). The diagnostic odyssey of autism: A cross-sectional study of 3 age cohorts of children from the 2016-2018 National Survey of Children’s Health. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 15(1), 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-021-00409-y

25.

Harrison

Jones

Sharif

Di Guglielmo

M. D.

(2017). General pediatrician-staffed behavioral/developmental access clinic decreases time to evaluation of early childhood developmental disorders. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 38(6), 353–357. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000448

26.

Hine

J. F.

Allin

Allman

Black

Browning

Ramsey

Swanson

Warren

Z. E.

Zawoyski

Allen

(2020). Increasing access to autism spectrum disorder diagnostic consultation in rural and underserved communities: Streamlined evaluation within primary care. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 41(1), 16–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000727

27.

Hine

J. F.

Herrington

C. G.

Rothman

A. M.

Mace

R. L.

Patterson

B. L.

Carlson

K. L.

Warren

Z. E.

(2018). Embedding autism spectrum disorder diagnosis within the medical home: Decreasing wait times through streamlined assessment. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 48(8), 2846–2853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3548-3

28.

Hyman

S. L.

Levy

S. E.

Myers

S. M.

, & Council on Children With Disabilities, Section on Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. (2020). Identification, evaluation, and management of children with autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics, 145(1), e20193447.

29.

Jacobs

Steyaert

Dierickx

Hens

(2018). Implications of an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis: An interview study of how physicians experience the diagnosis in a young child. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 7(10), 348. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7100348

30.

Schieve

L. A.

Rice

C. E.

Yeargin-Allsopp

Tian

L. H.

Blumberg

S. J.

Kogan

M. D.

Boyle

C. A.

(2015). Age at Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis by race, ethnicity, and primary household language among children with special health care needs, United States, 2009–2010. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 19(8), 1687–1697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-015-1683-4

31.

Kanne

S. M.

Bishop

S. L.

(2021). Editorial Perspective: The autism waitlist crisis and remembering what families need. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(2), 140–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13254

32.

Karim

Cook

O’Reilly

(2014). Diagnosing autistic spectrum disorder in the age of austerity. Child: Care, Health and Development, 40(1), 115–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2012.01410.x

33.

Lappé

Lau

Dudovitz

R. N.

Nelson

B. B.

Karp

E. A.

Kuo

A. A.

(2018). The diagnostic odyssey of autism spectrum disorder. Pediatrics, 141(Suppl. 4), S272–S279. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-4300C

34.

Lord

Rutter

DiLavore

Risi

Gotham

Bishop

(2012). Autism Diagnostic Observation (Schedule–2nd Edition (ADOS-2). Western Psychological Corporation.

35.

Lord

Rutter

Le Couteur

(1994). Autism diagnostic interview-revised: A revised version of a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with possible pervasive developmental disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24(5), 659–685.

36.

Loubersac

Michelon

Ferrando

Picot

M.-C.

Baghdadli

(2023). Predictors of an earlier diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder in children and adolescents: A systematic review (1987-2017). European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-021-01792-9

37.

MacKenzie

K. T.

Mazefsky

C. A.

Eack

S. M.

(2022). Obtaining a first diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder: Descriptions of the diagnostic process and correlates of parent satisfaction from a national sample. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 53, 3799–3812. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-022-05673-1

38.

Maenner

M. J.

Warren

Williams

A. R.

Amoakohene

Bakian

A. V.

Bilder

D. A.

Durkin

M. S.

Fitzgerald

R. T.

Furnier

S. M.

Hughes

M. M.

(2023). Prevalence and characteristics of autism spectrum disorder among children aged 8 years—Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 11 sites, United States, 2020. MMWR Surveillance Summaries, 72(2), 1.

39.

Makino

Hartman

King

Wong

P. Y.

Penner

(2021). Parent experiences of autism spectrum disorder diagnosis: A scoping review. Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 8(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-021-00237-y

40.

Masi

DeMayo

M. M.

Glozier

Guastella

A. J.

(2017). An overview of autism spectrum disorder, heterogeneity and treatment options. Neuroscience Bulletin, 33(2), 183–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12264-017-0100-y

41.

Mazurek

M. O.

Brown

Curran

Sohl

(2017). ECHO autism: A new model for training primary care providers in best-practice care for children with autism. Clinical Pediatrics, 56(3), 247–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0009922816648288

42.

Mazurek

M. O.

Curran

Burnette

Sohl

(2019). ECHO Autism STAT: Accelerating early access to autism diagnosis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 49(1), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-018-3696-5

43.

Mazurek

M. O.

Harkins

Menezes

Chan

Parker

R. A.

Kuhlthau

Sohl

(2020). Primary care providers’ perceived barriers and needs for support in caring for children with autism. The Journal of Pediatrics, 221, 240–245e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2020.01.014

44.

Mazurek

M. O.

Kuhlthau

Parker

R. A.

Chan

Sohl

(2021). Autism and general developmental screening practices among primary care providers. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 42(5), 355–362. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000909

45.

Mcclure

Mackay

Mamdani

Mccaughey

(2010). A comparison of a specialist autism spectrum disorder assessment team with local assessment teams. Autism, 14(6), 589–603.

46.

Morris

Z. S.

Wooding

Grant

(2011). The answer is 17 years, what is the question: Understanding time lags in translational research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 104(12), 510–520. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110180

47.

Myers

S. M.

Johnson

C. P.

, & American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Children With Disabilities. (2007). Management of children with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 120(5), 1162–1182. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2362

48.

Ning

Daniels

Schwartz

Dunlap

Washington

Kalantarian

Wall

D. P.

(2019). Identification and quantification of gaps in access to autism resources in the United States: An Infodemiological Study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(7), e13094. https://doi.org/10.2196/13094

49.

Penner

Anagnostou

Andoni

L. Y.

Ungar

W. J.

(2018). Systematic review of clinical guidance documents for autism spectrum disorder diagnostic assessment in select regions. Autism, 22(5), 517–527. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361316685879

50.

Penner

Anagnostou

Ungar

W. J.

(2018). Practice patterns and determinants of wait time for autism spectrum disorder diagnosis in Canada. Molecular Autism, 9(1), 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-018-0201-0

51.

Penner

King

G. A.

Hartman

Anagnostou

Shouldice

Hepburn

C. M.

(2017). Community general pediatricians’ perspectives on providing autism diagnoses in Ontario, Canada: A Qualitative Study. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 38(8), 593–602. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000000483

52.

Penner

Senman

Andoni

Dupuis

Anagnostou

Kao

Solish

Shouldice

Ferguson

Brian

(2023). Concordance of diagnosis of autism Spectrum disorder made by pediatricians vs a multidisciplinary specialist team. JAMA Network Open, 6(1), e2252879.

53.

Rosen

T. E.

Mazefsky

C. A.

Vasa

R. A.

Lerner

M. D.

(2018). Co-occurring psychiatric conditions in autism spectrum disorder. International Review of Psychiatry (Abingdon, England), 30(1), 40–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540261.2018.1450229

54.

Siklos

Kerns

K. A.

(2007). Assessing the diagnostic experiences of a small sample of parents of children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 28(1), 9–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2005.09.003

55.

Sohl

Levinstein

James

Greer

Boles

Curran

A. B.

Mahurin

Mazurek

M. O.

Nanclares

(2023). ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) Autism STAT: A diagnostic accuracy study of community-based primary care diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics: JDBP, 44(3), e177–e184. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0000000000001172

56.

Swanson

A. R.

Warren

Z. E.

Stone

W. L.

Vehorn

A. C.

Dohrmann

Humberd

(2014). The diagnosis of autism in community pediatric settings: Does advanced training facilitate practice change? Autism, 18(5), 555–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361313481507

57.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). 2016 NSCH data release. Census.Gov. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2016/demo/nsch/nsch2016.html

58.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). 2017 NSCH data release. Census.Gov. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2017/demo/nsch/nsch2017.html

59.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). 2018 NSCH data release. Census.Gov. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2018/demo/nsch/nsch2018.html

60.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2019). 2019 NSCH data release. Census.Gov. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2019/demo/nsch/nsch2019.html

61.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2020). 2020 NSCH data release. Census.Gov. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/nsch/data/datasets/nsch2020.html

62.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2021). 2021 NSCH data release. Census.Gov. https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/nsch/data/datasets/nsch2021.html

63.

Wallis

K. E.

Guthrie

Bennett

A. E.

Gerdes

Levy

S. E.

Mandell

D. S.

Miller

J. S.

(2020). Adherence to screening and referral guidelines for autism spectrum disorder in toddlers in pediatric primary care. PLOS ONE, 15(5), e0232335. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0232335

64.

Warren

Stone

Humberd

(2009). A training model for the diagnosis of autism in community pediatric practice. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 30(5), 442. https://doi.org/10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181ba0e4e

65.

Wickham

(2016). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer. https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org

66.

Wieckowski

A. T.

Zuckerman

K. E.

Broder-Fingert

Robins

D. L.

(2022). Addressing current barriers to autism diagnoses through a tiered diagnostic approach involving pediatric primary care providers. Autism Research, 15(12), 2216–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2832

67.

Wong

Keyes

M. L.

McGrew

J. H.

(2017). Pre-diagnostic and diagnostic stages of autism spectrum disorder: A parent perspective. Child Care in Practice, 23(2), 195–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2016.1199537

68.

Zuckerman

K. E.

Broder-Fingert

Sheldrick

R. C.

(2021). To reduce the average age of autism diagnosis, screen preschoolers in primary care. Autism, 25(2), 593–596. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320968974

69.

Zwaigenbaum

Bauman

M. L.

Choueiri

Kasari

Carter

Granpeesheh

Mailloux

Smith Roley

Wagner

Fein

Pierce

Buie

Davis

P. A.

Newschaffer

Robins

Wetherby

Stone

W. L.

Yirmiya

Estes

Natowicz

M. R.

(2015). Early intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder under 3 years of age: Recommendations for practice and research. Pediatrics, 136(Suppl. 1), S60–S81. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-3667E

70.

Zwaigenbaum

Bishop

Stone

W. L.

Ibanez

Halladay

Goldman

Kelly

Klaiman

Lai

M.-C.

Miller

Saulnier

Siper

Sohl

Warren

Wetherby

(2021). Rethinking autism spectrum disorder assessment for children during COVID-19 and beyond. Autism Research: Official Journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 14(11), 2251–2259. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2615

71.

Zwaigenbaum

Warren

(2021). Commentary: Embracing innovation is necessary to improve assessment and care for individuals with ASD: A reflection on Kanne and Bishop (2020). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 62(2), 143–145. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13271