ArticleCommunity mental health journal2023
How to Minimize the Impact of Experts' Non-rational Beliefs on Their Judgments on Autism.
Article in Community mental health journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiences of an Autism Diagnosis in Adulthood: The Role of Grassroots Epistemology in Clinical Settings.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The image of autism in the Polish press 2009-2020 and the role of first-person testimonies.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
- Mental Health Experts as Objects of Epistemic Injustice-The Case of Autism Spectrum Condition.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Cognitive biases as an adaptive strategy in autism and schizophrenia spectrum: the compensation perspective on neurodiversity.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The non-autistic majority often judges people on the autism spectrum through the prism of numerous stereotypes, prejudices, cognitive biases, or, generally speaking, non-rational beliefs. This causes problems in autistic people's everyday lives, as they often feel stigmatized, marginalized, and they internalize deficit-laden narratives about themselves. Unfortunately, experts, including health or law professionals, are not entirely immune to these non-rational beliefs, which affect their decision-making processes. This primarily happens when a mix of background knowledge, overconfidence, and haste co-occur. The resulting decisions may impact autistic people, e.g., by determining eligibility for the state's therapeutical and financial support. This paper shows how simplified reasoning and inference may influence experts' (medical examiners or court expert witnesses) decision-making processes concerning autistic people. It also proposes particular clues and strategies that could help experts cope with this risk and avoid making biased decisions.
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.