| Literature DB >> 29734506 |
David Mason1, Helen McConachie1, Deborah Garland2, Alex Petrou3, Jacqui Rodgers3, Jeremy R Parr3,4.
Abstract
Research with adults on the autism spectrum is as yet limited in scope and quality. The present study describes quality of life (QoL) of a large sample of autistic adults in the UK and investigates characteristics that may be predictive of QoL. A total of 370 autistic adults from the Adult Autism Spectrum Cohort-UK (ASC-UK) completed the WHOQoL-BREF, and the Social Responsiveness Scale (SRS, autism symptom severity), along with the ASC-UK registration questionnaire giving information on mental health and their life situation. QoL for autistic adults was lower than for the general population for each WHOQoL domain. Younger participants reported higher QoL than older participants in psychological and environment domains. Males reported higher physical QoL than females, and females reported higher social QoL than males. Significant positive predictors of QoL were: being employed (physical QoL), receiving support (social and environment QoL), and being in a relationship (social QoL). Having a mental health condition and higher SRS total score were negative predictors of QoL across all four domains. Autistic adults require access to effective mental health interventions, and informal and formal support for their social difficulties, to improve their quality of life. Autism Res 2018, 11: 1138-1147.Entities:
Keywords: autism; gender; public mental health; quality of life
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29734506 PMCID: PMC6220831 DOI: 10.1002/aur.1965
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Autism Res ISSN: 1939-3806 Impact factor: 5.216
Participants’ Demographic Information
| Characteristic | Range | Mean | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 17–80 | 41.61 |
|
| Male | 17–74 | 43.03 |
|
| Female | 18–80 | 40.59 |
|
| Age at diagnosis (years) | 2–74 | 36.89 | 17.12 |
| Male | 2–74 | 37.04 | 18.67 |
| Female | 3–69 | 37.76 | 14.50 |
Note that these participants are excluded from all subsequent analyses which include gender; bdata are collected about support in the home with daily living tasks, help at work, that is interacting with co‐workers, managing money, organizing a diary or planning daily activities; c‘other’ includes being a career for a relative, long‐term illness, being a full time student, or unable to work; d‘higher education' is first‐degree level qualification or above.
Means and Standard Deviations for WHOQoL‐BREF Subscales and Normative Data for the UK Population
| Group | Mean physical (SD) | Mean psychological (SD) | Mean social (SD) | Mean environment (SD) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASC‐UK | 47.95 (18.83) | 45.74 (16.87) | 40.24 (21.99) | 55.53 (19.95) |
| ASC‐UK | 49.22 (18.41) | 44.38 (17.81) | 40.32 (22.32) | 54.81 (20.00) |
| UK normsb | 76.49 (16.19) | 67.82 (15.56) | 70.52 (20.67) | 68.20 (13.81) |
| Cohen's d | 1.63 | 1.36 | 1.42 | 0.74 |
Excluding those without a formal diagnosis; btaken from normative data (Skevington & McCrate, 2012) (‘well’ participants; n = 1324–1328); d = 0.2 considered a small effect, 0.5 a medium effect, and 0.8 a large effect.
MANOVA Results for Age, Gender, and WHOQoL‐BREF Domains
| Statistic | Wilk's λ | F |
| Partial η2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MANOVA | ||||
| Age × gender | 0.947 | 1.58 | 0.091 | 0.02 |
| Age | 0.910 | 2.75 | 0.001 | 0.03 |
| Gender | 0.956 | 3.97 | 0.004 | 0.04 |
| ANOVA—age | ||||
| Physical | – | 1.10 | 0.347 | 0.01 |
| Psychological | – | 3.95 | 0.009 | 0.03 |
| Social | – | 1.83 | 0.141 | 0.02 |
| Environment | – | 3.67 | 0.012 | 0.03 |
| ANOVA – gender | ||||
| Physical | – | 5.56 | 0.019 | 0.02 |
| Psychological | – | 1.63 | 0.202 | 0.01 |
| Social | – | 4.12 | 0.043 | 0.01 |
| Environment | – | 3.12 | 0.078 | 0.01 |
Wilk's λ is not applicable to univariate tests. Partial η 2 = 0.01 for a small effect, 0.06 for a medium effect, and 0.13 for a large effect.
Figure 1Mean scores for subscales of the WHOQoL‐BREF (scored from 0 to 100) by age band (in years) with errors bars showing one standard deviation.
R 2, Standardized β Coefficients for the Positive and Negative Predictors, and Model Significance for Each Subscale of the WHOQoL‐BREF
| Subscale predictors |
|
| Β | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive predictors of QoL | Negative predictors of QoL | |||||
| Physical | ||||||
| Model 1a | 0.038 | .021 | – | – | Being female | −0.181 |
| Model 2b | 0.396 | <.001 | Being employed | 0.111 |
Being female |
–0.130 |
| Psychological | – | |||||
| Model 1a | 0.052 | .004 | – | – | Being female | −0.199** |
| Model 2b | 0.323 | <.001 | – | – |
Being female |
–0.157** |
| Social | ||||||
| Model 1a | 0.028 | .072 | – | ‐ | Age | −0.150 |
| Model 2b | 0.246 | <.001 |
Being in a relationship |
0.296*** |
Age |
–0.182** |
| Environment | ||||||
| Model 1a | 0.047 | .014 | – | ‐ | Being female | −0.195** |
| Model 2b | 0.383 | <.001 | Receiving support | 0.180** |
Being female |
–0.163** |
Predictors were age, age at diagnosis, and gender; bpredictors were relationship status, living status, being employed, receiving external support, education level, having a diagnosed mental health condition, having a diagnosed physical health condition, and SRS total.
*P < .05, **P < .01, ***P < .001