ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2025
An integrative approach between neurodiversity perspectives and quality of life models for autistic people across the spectrum of support needs.
Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency Ambulance Healthcare for People With Intellectual Disabilities: A Scoping Review.Journal of applied research in intellectual disabilities : JARID · 2026Article
- Neurodiversity as an epistemic stress test for psychotherapy and health care: a neuroaffirmative conceptual analysis of relational-proximity priors in clinical, institutional, and AI-supported models.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Review
- Measuring the quality of life of students with autism in Chilean general education schools.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Autism is increasingly understood not through deficit-based frameworks but through approaches that emphasize rights, inclusion, and well-being for autistic people across the spectrum of support needs, including non-speaking individuals, those with intellectual disability, and those experiencing mental health challenges. Two perspectives have been central to this shift: Quality of Life (QoL) models, rooted in applied disability research, and the neurodiversity paradigm, arising from autistic self-advocacy and social justice movements. Aim: This mini review examines the convergences and tensions between these perspectives, generating a set of integrative principles to guide support providers, researchers, and policymakers. Evidence is synthesized across three thematic perspectives: socio-political and paradigmatic debates, particularly language, identity, and representation; applied and clinical practice, including the aims, role, and risks of supports and interventions; and research, with attention to participatory approaches, lived-experience priorities, and the representation of autistic people with extensive support needs. Discussion: Six principles emerge: (i) well-being depends on both self-acceptance and the quality of supports; (ii) language should balance contextual function with individual preference; (iii) identity has transformative value, requiring diagnostic practices that are inclusive, participatory, and non-deficit oriented; (iv) supports are essential mechanisms for participation, not threats to identity; (v) interventions should promote autonomy, belonging, and growth without enforcing normalization; and (vi) research must ensure autistic participation across all stages, with accessible processes and priorities aligned with autistic preferences. Together, these principles offer a framework for integrating QoL and neurodiversity approaches in ways that advance rights, inclusion, and well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.