
The
CDC estimated that rate of autism for 8-year-olds in the United States
is one in 88 children. Why are there so many people with autism today?
Consider that
no one was autistic before 1944 -because the
condition had not been named or described until then. By 1953, one
doctor said the diagnosis had “threatens to become a fashion.” Is autism
over-diagnosed or is it more prevalent for some reason? Or could it be
that awareness and better diagnostic techniques identify people with
autism that would have once been labeled as something else?
To most experts in autism and autism epidemiology, the
biggest factors accounting for the boost in autism prevalence are the
shifting definitions and increased awareness about the disorder. Several
decades after the introduction of autism as a diagnosis, researchers
have reported that professionals are still engaging in “diagnostic
substitution”: moving people from one diagnostic category, such as
“mental retardation” or “language impairment,” to the autism category.
For instance, in one recent study, researchers at UCLA re-examined a
population of 489 children who’d been living in Utah in the 1980s. Their
first results, reported in 1990, identified 108 kids in the study
population who received a classification of “challenged” (what we
consider today to be “intellectually disabled”) but who were not
diagnosed as autistic. When the investigators went back and applied
today’s autism diagnostic criteria to the same 108 children, they found
that 64 of them would have received an autism diagnosis today, along
with their diagnosis of intellectual disability.
Further evidence of this shift comes from developmental
neuropsychologist Dorothy Bishop and colleagues, who completed a study
involving re-evaluation of adults who’d been identified in childhood as
having a developmental language disorder rather than autism. Using two
diagnostic tools to evaluate them today, Bishops’ group found that a
fifth of these adults met the criteria for an autism spectrum diagnosis
when they previously had not been recognized as autistic.
Another strong argument against the specter of an emergent autism
epidemic is that prevalence of the disorder is notably similar from
country to country and between generations. A 2011 UK study of a large
adult population found a consistent prevalence of 1% among adults,
“similar to that found in (UK) children” and about where the rates are
now among US children. In other words, they found as many adults as
there were children walking around with autism, suggesting stable rates
across generations—at least, when people bother to look at adults. And
back in 1996, Lorna Wing (the autism expert who’d translated Asperger’s
seminal paper) tentatively estimated an autism spectrum disorder
prevalence of 0.91% [PDF] based on studies of children born between 1956
and 1983, close to the 1% that keeps popping up in studies today.
It appears that quite a few people that were warehoused in insane
asylums in previous centuries would now be diagnosed more accurately.
Read a lot more about the rates of autism at
The Crux.
No comments:
Post a Comment