ArticleSystematic reviews2025
Optimising general practice support for autistic adults: a realist review protocol.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMental and physical health conditions are more common in autistic than non-autistic people, including anxiety, depression, suicidality, gastrointestinal problems, cancer, epilepsy, and heart disease. General practice is often the first point of contact for patients, yet research has found that autistic people face barriers to healthcare, report lower satisfaction with healthcare, and have more unmet health needs than non-autistic people. This can be due to misunderstandings about the needs of autistic people, different communication styles, the clinic environment, and challenges making and getting to appointments, compounded by slow dissemination of research findings. Our aim is to find out how, why, and to what extent general practice supports autistic adults with and without intellectual disabilities (ID) throughout their lives, in order to suggest improvements to practice.
methodsWe will conduct a realist review which is a theory-driven systematic review. Electronic databases will be searched including MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Scopus, ASSIA and grey literature sources (e.g. Google Scholar). To be included articles must concern general practice, autistic adults aged 18 and over, contain information relevant to a UK setting, and be written in English. Any study design or article type may be included and articles will be assessed for relevance and rigour. In line with realist synthesis methods we will identify relevant contexts, mechanisms and outcomes and develop a programme theory to explain how, why, and when general practice optimally supports (or not) autistic adults. We will also seek to identify resources that are available for and used by general practice to support autistic adults. We will involve stakeholders in each stage of the review including autistic individuals, family members, and healthcare professionals (including general practice staff). The review will be reported in line with the RAMESES publication standards. DISCUSSION: The findings will inform guidance for i) general practice about potentially helpful adaptations to service, and ii) autistic people to help them gain the support they need. This will help to improve access to and engagement with general practice care, and thus potentially improve the health and wellbeing of autistic individuals. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024545403.
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.