Strategic Plan Objective Detail
Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC) logo
Office of Autism Research Coordination (OARC) logo

Question 4: Long-term Objective D  

$8,756,832.00
Fiscal Year: 2010

New! Green dot: Objective has greater than or equal to the recommended funding.4LD. Support at least five community-based studies that assess the effectiveness of interventions and services in broader community settings by 2015. Such studies may include comparative effectiveness research studies that assess the relative effectiveness of: o Different and/or combined medical, pharmacological, nutritional, behavioral, service-provision, and parent- or caregiver-implemented treatments; o Scalable early intervention programs for implementation in underserved, low-resource, and low-literacy populations; and o Studies of widely used community intervention models for which extensive published data are not available. Outcome measures should include assessment of potential harm as a result of autism treatments, as well as positive outcomes. IACC Recommended Budget: $37,500,000 over 5 years.

Download 2010 Question 4: Long-term Objective D projects (EXCEL)
Note: Initial Sort is by Principal Investigator. Sorting by other columns is available by clicking on the desired column header.
Project Title Principal Investigator Institution
Comparison of two comprehensive treatment models for preschool-aged children with autism spectrum disorders and their families Odom, Samuel University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Social communication and symbolic play intervention for preschoolers with autism Watson, Linda University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Efficacy of a parent-mediated intervention for one-year-olds at risk for autism Watson, Linda University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
The impact of classroom climate on autism intervention fidelity and outcomes Dingfelder, Hilary University of Pennsylvania
Implementing evidence-based social skills interventions in public school settings Locke, Jill University of Pennsylvania/Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Related services intervention for expressive and receptive language skills in autism spectrum disorder and in cognitive impairment Camarata, Steven Vanderbilt University
High school inclusion program for students with autism spectrum disorders Hughes, Carolyn Vanderbilt University

Objective Cumulative Funding Table

IACC Strategic Plan Objective 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Total
Support at least five community-based studies that assess the effectiveness of interventions and services in broader community settings by 2015. Such studies may include comparative effectiveness research studies that assess the relative effectiveness of:
  • Different and/or combined medical, pharmacological, nutritional, behavioral, service-provision, and parent- or caregiver-implemented treatments;
  • Scalable early intervention programs for implementation in underserved, low-resource, and low-literacy populations; and
  • Studies of widely used community intervention models for which extensive published data are not available.
Outcome measures should include assessment of potential harm as a result of autism treatments, as well as positive outcomes.

IACC Recommended Budget: $37,500,000 over 5 years
N/A

N/A

4.L.D
$8,756,832
32 projects

4.L.D
$6,296,024
32 projects

4.L.D
$10,186,313
45 projects

$25,239,169
4.L.D. Funding: The recommended budget was partially met, and the annualized recommended budget targets were met for all 3 years since the objective was introduced. Therefore, the funding for this objective is on track.

Progress: 30-45 studies have been supported, which is greater than the recommended minimum of at least five studies. Considerable work has been done under this objective, but these projects do not cover the full scope of interventions in the community. Comparing the large number of studies to the funding suggests that many small studies are being funded rather than fewer large ones.

Remaining Gaps, Needs, and Opportunities: Emphasis on both the evaluation of interventions in controlled/academic settings prior to community based studies and the translation of interventions to community-based settings is key. Understanding of "Type 2 Translation," or transfer of research from academic settings to real-world settings is important, considering barriers to transferring academic-based interventions to clinical groups and communities. Investment is still necessary in the academic setting before successful translation to community-based interventions can occur. For successful T2 translation to underserved communities, cost effectiveness and case coordination or case management is often helpful with uptake. This objective also overlaps considerably with objectives in Question 5. It is important to explore which supports are specifically executed at the community level (vs. home, schools, etc.), and to determine how they are best designed.