IntroductionChildren and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be particularly vulnerable to the impact of traumatic events, yet the associatio...

I expect this to be common knowledge for much of the audience here, but

TLDR: Science has[is starting to] confirmed. Autistic people are a [comparatively] traumatized group.

Journal article is from January of this year.

Introduction: Children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) may be particularly vulnerable to the impact of traumatic events, yet the association between ASD and the risk of developing acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) remains uncertain. This study aims to investigate this association, addressing the gap in large-scale evidence on the subject.

Methods: Conducted as a retrospective and matched cohort study, data was sourced from the National Health Insurance Research Database (NHIRD) in Taiwan, spanning from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2015. The study included patients aged 18 years or under newly diagnosed with ASD (n=15,200) and compared them with a matched control group (n=45,600). The Cox proportional regression model was employed to assess the risk of acute stress disorder and PTSD.

Results: Over the 15-year follow-up period, a total of 132 participants developed either acute stress disorder or PTSD. Among them, 105 cases (0.691% or 64.90 per 100,000 person-years) were in the ASD group, while 27 cases (0.059% or 5.38 per 100,000 person-years) were in the control group. The adjusted hazard ratio for the ASD group was significantly higher compared to the control group (25.661 with 95% CI = 15.913-41.232; P < .001).

Discussion: This study provides compelling evidence that individuals with ASD face an elevated risk of developing acute stress disorder and PTSD. The findings underscore the importance of clinicians recognizing and addressing this vulnerability in ASD individuals exposed to traumatic events. This emphasizes the need for heightened attention to the risk of PTSD and acute stress disorder in the ASD population.

  • KarthNemesis@kbin.social
    10·
    2 months ago

    “People who are discriminated against have more stress and PTSD. This probably is because they are more sensitive.”

    Sigh.

    • I'm back on my BS 🤪@lemmy.worldMEnglish
      2·
      2 months ago

      This probably is because they are more sensitive.

      I didn’t read the entire article because I’m about to head out, but I searched the article for that statement and couldn’t find it. If they did say something similar or implied that the reason we are traumatized is our fault for being sensitive, then maybe someone can send this article on being told, “You’re too sensitive,” to the authors.

      Btw, I seriously told some friends earlier this week that I want a shirt that says, “I’m too sensitive,” or some variation of that. Another idea was, “‘You’re too sensitive!’ - Abusers.”

      • KarthNemesis@kbin.social
        5·
        2 months ago

        It’s not a verbatim quote. It’s sardonic, derived from the introduction.

        I do not like being called “particularly vulnerable to the impact of traumatic events,” ha. Even if they are utilizing that phrasing primarily for kids and young adults, and hedge it in tentativeness, it genuinely is not a dissimilar wordage to people who had been abusive to me during those periods of my life.

        I wasn’t particularly vulnerable to the impact, I was in a crap situation trapped with people who deeply did not understand me, that had complete power over me. That would be bad for anyone.

        It’s not a critique of the article as a whole. More of a pet peeve on how many people frame approaching autism, even without any malignant intention. I don’t hold any ill will against the researchers, I’m just tired.

        ==

        I agree with the conclusion of your shared article that people have a tendency to frame perceptiveness as “too sensitive,” twisting a genuine strength into a bad thing to undermine your own critical thinking.

        I also want to state somehow that I appreciate the pure good faith way you approached my original comment ha, keep doing what you’re doing.

      • KarthNemesis@kbin.social
        4·
        2 months ago

        And I said “probably.” I didn’t misrepresent them.

        If it is the first go-to speculation, it is fairly representative of the default of what they assume could be valid, and it’s annoying. That the automatic primary speculation is that minorities are “just sensitive” should be challenged. Tentative couching of that prognosis does not excuse them from review.

        I realize you did not state this as your position, and I do not expect you to defend it as your own, but I’d very much prefer to stave off any implication.