There are approximately 700 000 autistic people in the UK, and autism is increasingly being diagnosed in adulthood. Diagnosis on its own does not provide adequate information to plan post-diagnostic support for autistic people, and clinicians often plan support without the use of validated standardised tools which may exacerbate inequities in care. This study will evaluate a novel strengths and needs assessment, based on the WHO’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health CoreSet for Autism, for use in adult diagnostic services immediately on receipt of an autism diagnosis. Potential issues, including the length of the assessment, timing of delivery and selection bias, will be explored as part of the trial process evaluation.

A two-arm, multisite, randomised pilot trial design will be used to evaluate the ICF CoreSets for Autism Strengths and Needs Assessment in three diagnostic services in England. A total of 72 newly diagnosed autistic adults will be recruited across the three sites over a 6-month period and randomised into an assessment group (strengths and needs assessment plus standard care) and a treatment as usual group (standard care only). The assessment group will receive a summary report of their strengths and needs on completion of the assessment. Both groups will complete measures of mental health and quality of life at baseline and 3 months follow-up (Patient Health Questionnaire-9, Generalised Anxiety Disorder questionnaire-7, Recovering Quality of Life questionnaire-10, EuroQoL-5D). Acceptability and feasibility will be measured for the strengths and needs assessment and for trial procedures using standardised measures, progression criteria and qualitative data from clinician focus groups and interviews with a subsample of autistic participants. The study design and procedures are being co-produced with an autistic advisor/patient and public involvement lead and with a steering group of autistic adults.

This study was reviewed by the East Midlands—Nottingham 2 Research Ethics Committee and was given Health Research Authority approval on 18 March 2025 (REC reference:25/EM/0041). The results will be disseminated via reports to the funder (NIHR), a peer-reviewed journal paper and academic conferences. We will email a summary report of findings to study participants and will invite participants to an information dissemination event at the end of the study. Links to reports and a lay summary will be provided on the research group’s website: https://sharl.sites.sheffield.ac.uk/home

ISRCTN10283350.

To assess the comparative effectiveness of educational interventions in neurological disease for healthcare workers and students.

Systematic review.

Medline, Embase and Cochrane through to 1 June 2025.

Studies evaluating neurological disease educational interventions with a comparator group (observational cohort/randomised controlled trial (RCT)) were included.

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review was conducted (PROSPERO: CRD42023461838). Knowledge acquisition and educational methodologies were collected from each study. Study outcomes were classified using the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick four-level model (learner reaction, knowledge acquisition, behavioural change, clinical outcome).¹ Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for non-randomised studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs.^{2 3}

A total of 67 studies involving 4728 participants were included. Of these, 36 were RCTs, and 31 were observational studies. Virtual interventions were the most common (67.2%, n=45 studies), primarily targeting either medical students (46.3%, n=31 studies) or specialists (40.3%, n=27 studies). Overall, 70.1% (n=47) of studies demonstrated outcomes in favour of the intervention. However, few studies used K&K level 3/4 outcomes, with two studies evaluating behaviour change (level 3) and three assessing clinical outcomes (level 4 combined with other levels). No study exclusively assessed level 4 outcomes. Meta-analysis of 22 RCTs with calculable standardised mean differences (SMDs) (n=1748) showed a significant benefit of interventions (SMD 0.75, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.27, p=0.0056).

This review highlights a growing body of research particularly focusing on virtual techniques, specialist audiences and treatment-oriented content. Few studies assessed changes in practice or patient care. Non-specialists remain underrepresented. Future studies should prioritise assessing the clinical impact of educational interventions within non-specialist audiences.