Ionita, Gabriela

Autistic burnout, characterised by chronic exhaustion, reduced tolerance to stimuli, and loss of executive function skills (Raymaker, et al., 2020) has severe consequences, including heightened mental and physical health problems, reduced capacity for independent living, decreased quality of life, and suicide attempts (Arnold et al., 2023a; Higgins et al., 2021; Mantzalas, Richdale, Adikari, et al., 2022b; Raymaker et al., 2020). Although autistic burnout has been validated as a syndrome that is distinct from depression and occupational burnout (Higgins et al., 2021; Raymaker et al., 2020), it is unclear if mental health treatment providers are able to distinguish depression from autistic burnout (Rose, 2018). Yet, some treatments such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Behaviour Activation (BA) may be ineffective or contra-indicated (Higgins et al., 2021). Considering the limited literature on autistic burnout, the complexity of treating it, and the possible harm involved in providing a treatment that may be contraindicated, it is critical to gain a deeper understanding of this syndrome. This study aimed to explore Autistic experiences accessing treatment for autistic burnout and their perspectives on the effectiveness of the treatments that were offered to them. Eleven participants completed semi-structured interviews. Qualitative analysis was informed by an interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) framework using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach at a semantic level. Participants reported that clinicians often failed to identify autistic burnout and generally lacked knowledge of the condition. Misdiagnoses were common, leading to treatments that delayed recovery and exacerbated symptoms of autistic burnout. Participants described negative experiences accessing support, including lack of support services, which eroded their faith in the healthcare system. Potential effective treatments and supports were identified, primarily the need for rest and practical support. These findings highlight the need to raise awareness among clinicians about the nature of autistic burnout, the importance of collaborating with the Autistic client to develop a treatment plan, and the general need for more services for Autistic adults.

The use of Progress Monitoring (PM) measures has been shown to improve outcomes in therapy for clients who do not follow the normal trajectory of improvement. In addition to improved outcomes, there are several other documented benefits of PM that may motivate clinicians to use PM. Research has examined the broader field of selecting mental health care quality assessment tools and a review of the literature has pointed to the importance of considering motivation for assessment when selecting a measure. However, how motivation influences the selection or maintained usage of PM measures has not been studied. This study examined initial motivation as well as measure selection and continuing use of PM. Consensual Qualitative Research methodology was applied to characterize how clinicians (n = 25) started, selected, and maintained use of PM measures and how initial motivation related to measure selection and continued use. Regardless of initial motivation, convenience and effectiveness emerged as important when selecting and continuing to use a measure. Results are compared to current frameworks for selecting mental health- care quality indicators. Our results suggest that PM measures need to strike a balance, emphasizing convenience as well as efficacy in order to improve clinical uptake and adherence.

The use of Progress Monitoring (PM) measures has been shown to improve outcomes in therapy for clients who do not follow the normal trajectory of improvement. In addition to improved outcomes, there are several other documented benefits of PM that may motivate clinicians to use PM. Research has examined the broader field of selecting mental health care quality assessment tools and a review of the literature has pointed to the importance of considering motivation for assessment when selecting a measure. However, how motivation influences the selection or maintained usage of PM measures has not been studied. This study examined initial motivation as well as measure selection and continuing use of PM. Consensual Qualitative Research methodology was applied to characterize how clinicians (n = 25) started, selected, and maintained use of PM measures and how initial motivation related to measure selection and continued use. Regardless of initial motivation, convenience and effectiveness emerged as important when selecting and continuing to use a measure. Results are compared to current frameworks for selecting mental health- care quality indicators. Our results suggest that PM measures need to strike a balance, emphasizing convenience as well as efficacy in order to improve clinical uptake and adherence.

Progress-monitoring (PM) measures, which help ensure evidence-based practice, allow the tracking of client progress in psychotherapy treatment and even predict which clients will have negative outcomes. However, the majority of psychologists in Canada still do not use these measures in clinical practice. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators to the use of PM measures in psychotherapy among psychologists in Canada. Participants included 533 licensed psychologists from across Canada who responded to an online survey regarding the barriers and facilitators involved in using PM measures in clinical practice. Participants self-identified as either users, nonusers, or previous users of PM measures. The results of the present study indicate that the top-4 barriers to using PM measures were limited knowledge, limitations in training, burden on clients, and concerns regarding additional work and time. These barriers were similar across users, nonusers, and previous users. The results suggest that offering training in different formats, over extended periods of time, and from colleague to colleague may be the most effective approach to overcoming these barriers. Other strategies that may help address the identified barriers and implications for practicing clinicians and the field of psychology are discussed.