SynthesisBMJ quality & safety2026
Bridging diagnostic safety and mental health: a systematic review highlighting inequities in autism spectrum disorder diagnosis.
Synthesis in BMJ quality & safety, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Patient Simulation Framework for Risk Assessment of Conversational Health Care AI: Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR AI · 2026Article
- Incidence, contributing factors, and predictors of diagnostic errors in medical inpatients: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Article
- Epidemiological Features and Temporal Trends of Five Common Sexually Transmitted Infections Excluding HIV, 1990-2021: Findings From the Global Burden of Disease Study.Journal of medical virology · 2026Article
- Understanding disparities in autism diagnosis and care: A socioecological perspective.PLOS mental health · 2026Article
- Epistemic conflict in neurodevelopmental assessment: a critical discourse analysis of second opinion requests.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- You must not fool yourself: Feynman, neurodiversity, and honest AI in digital mental health.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Inequitably harmed: a scoping review protocol on patient safety and diverse population groups.BMJ open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThere is increased recognition that diagnostic errors disproportionately affect marginalised and underserved patient populations in the USA. However, evidence on diagnostic inequities in mental disorders is sparse and not well integrated into the overall diagnostic safety literature.
objectiveWe systematically reviewed and narratively synthesised evidence on inequities in diagnosis of mental disorders, guided by the Diagnostic Process Framework developed by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and a narrative synthesis. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched for studies published between 2015 and 2024. Studies were eligible if they reported on inequities in the diagnosis of mental disorders and applied a quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods design. Studies had to be peer reviewed, US based and published in English. The Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality appraisal. Data were analysed with a descriptive intent, and inequities were mapped into the diagnostic process.
results20 studies of varying methodological quality were included. Though not the initial focus, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) emerged as the most studied mental disorder (n=17). Of the diagnostic errors identified, most fell into the category of delayed diagnosis. 11 factors emerged as contributors to diagnostic inequities. Limited health literacy among patients and caregivers was the leading cause of diagnostic error in symptom recognition. Insurance coverage issues delayed patient engagement with the healthcare system. Provider bias during clinical history-taking and interviewing was seen as a key cause of delays and misdiagnoses. Within diagnostic testing and interpretation, culturally inequivalent assessment measures might cause misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis for Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino patients. The use of medical jargon and lack of qualified language interpreters during communicating the diagnosis were associated with diagnostic errors impacting patients with limited health literacy and low English language proficiency.
conclusionsDiagnostic inequities in ASD and other mental disorders persist across US patient populations. Multiple factors such as parental health literacy, provider bias and limited access interact and impact the diagnostic process. Addressing these interconnected barriers is essential to ensure timely, accurate and equitable care. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024581271.
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.