Advertisement

Social Validity of Strategies to Assist Females with ASD during Gynecological Examinations

  • Bobbie J. GallagherEmail author
  • Susan D. Flynn
  • Robyn Catagnus
  • Annette K. Griffith
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

This study aimed to identify strategies that stakeholders would deem appropriate for use during a gynecological exam for a female with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) who also has limited language (LL). Females with ASD are not receiving the same gynecological care as their non-ASD peers yet may have a greater need for such care due to increased health risks. Twenty-three parents and six caregivers of a female with ASD and LL, three females with ASD/Asperger’s, and two nurses responded to an online survey about possible strategies to use with a female with ASD and LL during a routine gynecological exam. With the use of an embedded video to explain the strategies, participants were asked to choose those they identify as being effective for the successful completion of a gynecological exam. The use of visual supports via an electronic device or picture prompts, reinforcement of incremental steps, and non-contingent escape were identified as the top three strategies that would support a female with ASD and LL during a gynecological exam. Participants also offered anecdotal commentary about their fears and concerns related to this issue. The patient’s voice in the decision-making process is crucial to the buy-in of the services offered by their providers. Once patient preference is known, it is imperative that researchers use that information. Identifying strategies with a higher rate of social validity, or acceptance of treatment prior to implementation, may assist future researchers in conducting studies on the effectiveness of those strategies.

Keywords

Females ASD Gynecology Medical Visual supports Social validity 

Notes

Funding

This study was not funded by any agency.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. IRB approval #17-08-0034.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual particpants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

None of the authors of this manuscript have any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations within three years of beginning the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work.

References

  1. ADDM: Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network. (2016). Community report on autism 2016. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/addm-community-report/documents/addm-community-report-2018-h.pdf \. Accessed November 2018
  2. Bernstein, G. S. (1989). In response: Social validity and the report of the ABA task force on the right to effective treatment. The Behavior Analyst, 12(1), 97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bilder, D., Botts, E. L., Smith, K. R., Pimentel, R., Farley, M., Viskochil, J., & Coon, H. (2013). Excess mortality and causes of death in autism Spectrum disorder: A follow up of the 1980s Utah/UCLA autism epidemiologic study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 43, 1196–1204.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1664-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouck, E. C., Satsangi, R., & Bartlett, W. (2016). Comparing a number line and audio prompts in supporting price comparison by students with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 53–54, 342–357  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2016.02.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boyd, S. E., Sanders, C. L., Kleinert, H. L., Huff, M. B., Lock, S., Johnson, S., Clevenger, K., Bush, N. A., VanDyke, E., & Clark, T. L. (2008). Virtual patient training to improve reproductive health care for women with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health, 53(5), 453–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bruder, M. B., Kerins, G., Mazzarella, C., Sims, J., & Stein, N. (2012). Brief report: The medical care of adults with autism spectrum disorder: Identifying the needs. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 2498–2504.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1496-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bultas, M. W., McMillin, S. E., & Zand, D. H. (2016). Reducing barriers to care in the office-based health care setting for children with autism. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 30(1), 5–14  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2015.08.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burke, L. M., Kalpakjian, C. Z., Smith, Y. R., & Quint, E. H. (2010). Gynecological issues of adolescents with down syndrome, autism, and cerebral palsy. Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology, 23, 11–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carr, E. G., Smith, C. E., Giacin, T. A., Whelan, B. M., & Pancari, J. (2003). Menstrual discomfort as a biological setting event for severe problem behavior: Assessment and intervention. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 108(2), 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamilton, A., Marshal, M. P., & Murray, P. J. (2011). Autism Spectrum disorders and menstruation. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49, 443–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Heidgerken, A. D., Geffken, G., Modi, A., & Frakey, L. (2005). A survey of autism knowledge in a health care setting. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35(3), 323–330.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-005-3298-x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kennedy, C. H. (1992). Trends in the measurement of social validity. The Behavior Analyst, 15(2), 147–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lane, K. L., Little, M. A., Redding-Rhodes, J., Phillips, A., & Welsh, M. T. (2007). Outcomes of a teacher-led reading intervention for elementary students at risk for behavioral disorders. Exceptional Children, 74, 47–70  https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707400103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mühlbacher, A. C., & Juhnke, C. (2013). Patient preferences versus physicians' judgement: Does it make a difference in healthcare decision making? Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 11(3), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nicolaidis, C., Raymaker, D., McDonald, K., Dern, S., Boisclair, W. C., Ashkenazy, E., & Baggs, A. (2012). Comparison of healthcare experiences in autistic and non-autistic adults: A cross-sectional online survey facilitated by an academic-community partnership. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 28(6), 761–769.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-012-2262-7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Schwartz, I. S. (1991). The study of consumer behavior and social validity: An essential partnership for applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 241–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 189–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Snodgrass, M. R., Chung, M. Y., Meadan, H., & Halle, J. W. (2018). Social validity in single-case research: A systematic literature review of prevalence and application. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 74, 160–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Suburbanstats (n.d.). Population Demographics for New Jersey 2017, 2018. Retrieved from: https://suburbanstats.org/population/how-many-people-live-in-new-jersey. Accessed December 2018
  20. Support. (n.d.). Create a form with Microsoft forms. Retrieved from https://support.office.com/en-us/article/create-a-form-with-microsoft-forms-4ffb64cc-7d5d-402f-b82e-b1d49418fd9d. Accessed February 2018
  21. Taber-Doughty, T. (2005). Considering student choice when selecting instructional strategies: A comparison of three prompting systems. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 411–432  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2004.07.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. The Arc of New Jersey (2018). Addressing sexual violence against people with I/DD: Blueprint for an empowered future. White paper, North Brunswick, NJ.Google Scholar
  23. Trétarre, B., Bourgarel, S., Stoebner-Delbarre, A., Jacot, W., Bessaoud, F., & Satge, D. (2017). Breast cancer and screening in persons with an intellectual disability living in institutions in France. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 61(3), 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Teijlingen, E., Pitchforth, E., Bishop, C., & Russell, E. (2006). Delphi method and nominal group technique in family planning and reproductive health research. Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, 32(4), 249–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Winett, R. A., Moore, J. F., & Anderson, E. S. (1991). Extending the concept of social validity: Behavior analysis for disease prevention and health promotion. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(2), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11(2), 203–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. WPSI:Women’s Preventative Services Initiative. (2017). Recommendations for Preventive Services for Women. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Washington, DC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Chicago School of Professional PsychologyChicagoUSA
  2. 2.BrickUSA

Personalised recommendations