INTRODUCTION: Under enrollment of participants in clinical research is costly and delays study completion to impact public health. Given that research personnel make decisions about which strategies to pursue and participants are the recipients of these efforts, we surveyed research staff (n = 52) and participants (n = 4,144) affiliated with SPARK (Simons Foundation Powering Autism for Knowledge) - the largest study of autism in the U.S. - to understand their perceptions of effective recruitment strategies. METHODS: In Study 1, research personnel were asked to report recruitment strategies that they tried for SPARK and to indicate which ones they would and would not repeat/recommend. In Study 2, SPARK participants were asked to indicate all the ways they heard about the study prior to enrollment and which one was most influential in their decisions to enroll. RESULTS: Staff rated speaking with a SPARK-study-team member (36.5%), speaking with a medical provider (19.2%), word of mouth (11.5%), and a live TV news story (11.5%) as the most successful strategies. Participants most often heard about SPARK via social media (47.0%), speaking with a medical provider (23.1%), and an online search (20.1%). Research personnels and participants views on effective recruitment strategies often differed, with the exception of speaking with a medical provider. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that a combination of strategies is likely to be most effective in reaching diverse audiences. Findings have implications for the selection of strategies that meet a studys specific needs, as well as recruitment-strategy combinations that may enhance the influence of outreach efforts.

Expressive language impairment is one of the most frequently associated clinical features of 16p11.2 copy number variations (CNV). However, our understanding of the language profiles of individuals with 16p11.2 CNVs is still limited. This study builds upon previous work in the Simons Variation in Individuals Project (VIP, now known as Simons Searchlight), to characterize language abilities in 16p11.2 deletion and duplication carriers using comprehensive assessments. Participants included 110 clinically ascertained children and family members (i.e., siblings and cousins) with 16p11.2 BP4-BP5 deletion and 58 with 16p11.2 BP4-BP5 duplication between the ages of 2-23 years, most of whom were verbal. Regression analyses were performed to quantify variation in language abilities in the presence of the 16p11.2 deletion and duplication, both with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and cognitive deficit. Difficulties in pragmatic skills were equally prevalent in verbal individuals in both deletion and duplication groups. NVIQ had moderate quantifiable effects on language scores in syntax and semantics/pragmatics (a decrease of less than 1 SD) for both groups. Overall, language impairments persisted even after controlling for ASD diagnosis and cognitive deficit. Language impairment is one of the core clinical features of individuals with 16p11.2 CNVs even in the absence of ASD and cognitive deficit. Results highlight the need for more comprehensive and rigorous assessment of language impairments to maximize outcomes in carriers of 16p11.2 CNVs.

Objective

Certain copy number variants (CNVs) greatly increase the risk of autism. The authors conducted a genetics-first study to investigate whether heterogeneity in the clinical presentation of autism is underpinned by specific genotype-phenotype relationships.

Methods

This international study included 547 individuals (mean age, 12.3 years [SD=4.2], 54% male) who were ascertained on the basis of having a genetic diagnosis of a rare CNV associated with high risk of autism (82 16p11.2 deletion carriers, 50 16p11.2 duplication carriers, 370 22q11.2 deletion carriers, and 45 22q11.2 duplication carriers), as well as 2,027 individuals (mean age, 9.1 years [SD=4.9], 86% male) with autism of heterogeneous etiology. Assessments included the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised and IQ testing.

Results

The four genetic variant groups differed in autism symptom severity, autism subdomain profile, and IQ profile. However, substantial variability was observed in phenotypic outcome in individual genetic variant groups (74%-97% of the variance, depending on the trait), whereas variability between groups was low (1%-21%, depending on the trait). CNV carriers who met autism criteria were compared with individuals with heterogeneous autism, and a range of profile differences were identified. When clinical cutoff scores were applied, 54% of individuals with one of the four CNVs who did not meet full autism diagnostic criteria had elevated levels of autistic traits.

Conclusions

Many CNV carriers do not meet full diagnostic criteria for autism but nevertheless meet clinical cutoffs for autistic traits. Although profile differences between variants were observed, there is considerable variability in clinical symptoms in the same variant.