ArticleCanadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie2015
Newspaper Coverage of Autism Treatment in Canada: 10-Year Trends (2004-2013).
Article in Canadian journal of psychiatry. Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- What Motivates Internet Users to Search for Asperger Syndrome and Autism on Google?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare trends in coverage of empirically supported and alternative autism treatments in Canadian newspapers during a 10-year period and to examine whether the portrayal of empirically supported and alternative treatments differed.
methodWe searched a sample of 10 daily local and national Canadian newspapers using the word autism combined with intervention or treatment in the Proquest Canadian Newsstand and Eureka.cc databases, which yielded a total of 857 articles published between 2004 and 2013. In our subsequent analyses, we only included articles whose main topic was autism and that referred to at least one treatment. We then categorized the 137 remaining articles by treatment and rated whether each treatment category was portrayed in a favourable, unfavourable, or neutral manner.
resultsIn total, 46% of the articles discussed at least 1 empirically supported treatment, 53% at least 1 alternative treatment, and 12% at least 1 uncategorized treatment. Newspaper articles provided favourable, unfavourable, and neutral portrayals of empirically supported treatments in 75%, 10%, and 16% of cases, respectively. In contrast, alternative treatments were portrayed favourably in 52%, unfavourably in 32%, and neutrally in 16% of cases. Our analyses indicated that empirically supported treatments were portrayed more favourably than alternative treatments (χ(2) = 10.42, df = 2, P = 0.005).
conclusionsDespite some encouraging trends, our study has shown that researchers and clinicians must continue to clarify misconceptions about autism treatment. Families of people with autism spectrum disorders should be directed toward more reliable and accurate sources of information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.