Sunday, June 3, 2012

Biopsychological Methods of Treating Autism



Biopsychological Methods of Treating Autism
            Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is considered a neurodevelopmental condition, (commonly referred to as autism), which impairs an individual’s ability to competently interact and communicate to varying degrees.  More specifically, social interaction, behavior, and language are afflicted.  Among the symptoms associated with autism are resistance, poor eye contact, unawareness, unresponsiveness, sensitivity to light, abnormal or underdeveloped speech, and hyperactivity or repetitive, uncontrolled movement.  Typically, these problems appear during early childhood (Mayo Clinic, 2012).  Prior to the 1990s this disease was quite rare.  However, in March of 2012 the Autism Research Institute determined 1 out of 88 eight year old children in the United States are affected by ASD and 60 children out of every 10,000 worldwide.  With an irresolute 70 plus percent increase of global cases over the past 10 years, research investigating the causes and treatments associated with autism are prevalent (Autism Research Institute, 2012).  The causes are generally centered on genetic problems and environmental factors, while the treatment has been offered from a behavioral, communicative, educational, or medicinal aspect (Mayo Clinic, 2012).  In effort to effectively administer treatment of sensorimotor disorders such as autism, biopsychological means such as psychopharmacology and psychophysiology are progressively employed (Pinel, 2011).  The following will analyze, compare, and contrast these approaches as utilized within relative case studies.
            The first study to consider incorporates pharmacological treatment which “can effectively target problem behaviors associated with autism” (Hollander, Phillips, & Yeh, 2003).  Often, drug treatment is viewed as complementary and integral to fostering a therapeutic relationship with the client, promoting compliance, improving domestic and educational environments, and enhancing parental involvement or concern (Hollander et al., 2003).  Accordingly, researchers introduced citalopram (Celexa), an antidepressant, to children and adolescents for 14 – 624 days (mean 219).  Once administered citalopram, 66% displayed significant improvement in functionality and nearly half showed improvements in attitude, aggression, and irritability.  Furthermore, it was determined that subjects treated with the drug for longer periods (not dosage) were positively affected.  Subjects experiencing negative or void reactions stopped prematurely (Hollander et al., 2003).
            Although psychopharmacological treatments are advantageous, they offer complications as well.  Drug abuse, improper diagnosis, prescription, informed consent, and school monitoring and caretaking are plausible issues impeding such methods (Hollander et al., 2003).  In terms of the case study, a third of the clients experienced one or more of the following side effects: headaches, sedation, aggressiveness, agitation, and lip dyskinesia.  Again, these individuals withdrew from treatment within three months (Hollander et al., 2003).
            The next case study employed an invasive electrophysiological recording method, referred to as quantitative EEG (QEEG), to examine autistic patients.  This procedure is defined as an electroencephalogram of brain function, enabling practitioners to observe brain waves of afflicted patients in comparison to healthy individuals or a control group (Abshier & Abshier, 2012).  In this particular instance, researchers used QEEG to compare a control group of wait-listed subjects to the neurofeedback provided by subjects (the experimental group) throughout 20 sessions.  They hypothesized that QEEG neurofeedback would provide superior insight to symptom based neurofeedback.  A comprehensive QEEG assessment grants practitioners the ability to identify regions of abnormality and provide proper guidance.  Additional measurements observed were neuropsychological data and neurobehavioral rating scales (Coben & Meyers, 2010).  The results confirmed that 76% of the experimental group reduced their hyperconnectivity and discovered a 40% decrease in ASD symptoms as 89% of the experimental group’s parents reported symptom improvement, all indicating improved treatment.  Of those in the control group, 83% remained unaffected.  In addition, from a neuropsychological aspect, patients’ attention, language, as well as visual perceptual and executive functioning improved. “This was the first published study to demonstrate the effectiveness of coherence training for reducing the symptoms of autism” (Coben & Meyers, 2010).
            While quantitative EGG is effective in the investigation and treatment of autistic symptoms, various factors hinder widespread usage.  From the practitioner’s perspective, there exists a lack of information and education concerning the method.  Hence, it is time consuming to gather and comprehend relative research.  From the client’s perspective, these procedures are not cost or time efficient and may be deemed unethical.  Furthermore, concerning both parties, QEEG has a minute potential of resulting in brain damage or additional brain malfunction.
            In summary, it may be concluded that neither of the aforementioned biopsychological means, psychopharmacological therapy nor quantitative EGG testing, establish an obvious advantage over the other in terms of treating an escalating disorder, autism.  Both methods possess the potential to provide effective results as well as adverse conditions on a case by case basis affecting all parties involved.  There are several factors to consider when diagnosing or selecting a particular treatment technique.  In these instances, the practitioner, the afflicted child, and the parents must be direct, well informed, and compliant in order to enhance the probability to achieve favorable outcomes. 
             
References:
Abshier, T.L., & Abshier, M.D. (2012). Gateway to health; QEEG & neurofeedback therapy.
            Retrieved April 30, 2012, from http://www.naturedox.com/qeegneurofeedback.html.
Autism Research Institute. Autism. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from
            http://www.autism.com/.
Coben, R., & Meyers, T.E. (2010). The relative efficacy of connectivity guided and symptom
based EEG biofeedback for autistic disorders. Applied Psychophysiology & Biofeedback,
35, 13-23.   
Hollander, E., Phillips, A.T., & Yeh, C. (2003). Targeted treatments for symptom domains in
            child and adolescent autism. The Lancet, 362, 732-734.
Mayo Clinic. Autism. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from
Pinel, J.P.J. (2011). Biopsychology (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

No comments:

Post a Comment