Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has become an epidemiological challenge in recent years. This is partially due to the greater awareness of this disease and, subsequently, the increased probability of its being diagnosed in borderline cases. However, some of the clinical challenges associated with autism are due to its ever broadening definition.
On March 27, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) presented its most recent study of ASD diagnoses among American children. The study revealed that one in 68 children are diagnosed with ASD. This follows the noticeably increasing trend since the the CDC’s first systematic surveillance of ASD in 2000, which found ASD in one in 150 children. In 2007, this statistic had increased to one in 110. In 2009, it was up to one in 88.
This latest investigation, the fourth conducted by the CDC’s Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring (ADDM) Network, was based on the compilation of health and special education records of eight-year-old children living in 11 states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin).
As part of the Maryland ADDM Network, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health contributed to this study. Li-Ching Lee, a psychiatric epidemiologist at the Bloomberg School’s Departments of Epidemiology and Mental Health, served as the principal investigator.
According to Lee, this marked increase in the rate of ASD occurrence among children may point out the limitations of the research rather than indicate an actual surge of ASD cases. Under his direction, the researchers found that about 20% of children with ASD had not been professionally diagnosed. This implies that some of the increase in ASD cases can be attributed to a gradually increasing acceptance of seeking professional help for autism-related symptoms.
Like Lee, CDC officials stress the difficulty of differentiating the numerous factors that may contribute to the increase in ASD rates. For one, the study was limited to eleven communities. This may be too small of a sample size, possibly skewing the overall data.
Furthermore, it is possible that the varying abilities of communities to identify autism may lead to a wide range in the data. This range was apparent in the study: in Alabama, 1 in 175 children were diagnosed with ASD. In New Jersey, this number jumped to 1 in 45.
All of these implications emphasize the necessity of developing better techniques to gauge the scope of ASD cases. This may also mean that the medical world needs to further standardize the procedures physicians use to diagnose and treat ASD.
Galvanized by the new findings, advocacy groups have started to demand more federal funding for autism-related research. These groups are also calling for more support services for families with autistic children. While the prevalence of the ASD may not have expanded to the degree the newest epidemiological investigation suggests, there is a significant need for further research on this condition that affects all racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups.
