ArticleJournal of developmental and physical disabilities2026
Lived Experience, Family, and Clinician Perspectives on Barriers to Adult Autism Diagnosis and Post-Diagnostic Supports: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review.
Article in Journal of developmental and physical disabilities, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Obtaining a late Autism diagnosis and post-diagnostic supports can be a long, complicated process. Prior research has explored the perspectives of those with lived experience, family members, and clinicians, but has not yet provided a comparison of their perspectives. This review integrates qualitative and quantitative literature on barriers to diagnosis and post-diagnostic supports from these three perspectives. We also examine barriers reported by gender-diverse and ethnic minority Autistic people. We searched Web of Science, PsycINFO, Embase, Medline, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Study quality was evaluated using Joanna Briggs tools and the Delphi Critical Appraisal Tool. We followed mixed-methods integrative methodology and thematic synthesis approaches to synthesise findings, and GRADE-CERQual to assess confidence in the evidence generated. We included 50 studies on 4487 adult-diagnosed participants, 902 self-identifying participants, 217 family members, and 198 clinicians. Ethnicity and gender identity were scarcely reported. Three analytical themes emerged: recognition and decision-making; negotiation at the interface; and resistance and resolutions. Tensions between stakeholders were seen in several areas, including conflicting views on access to information, diagnostic tools, self-identification, and challenges posed by co-occurring mental health conditions. The GRADE-CERQual appraisal showed moderate-to-high confidence in the findings. Barriers were compounded for gender-diverse and ethnic minority participants. Differences in how barriers (e.g., perceptions of diagnostic practices) are interpreted by stakeholders may themselves hinder access to services. We outline research and clinical implications, including transparent demographic reporting and improved access to information about services. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10882-026-10055-x.
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.