The British Journal of Psychiatry (2016)
209, 498–503. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.174649
Epidemiology of autism in adults across age
groups and ability levels*
Traolach S. Brugha, Nicola Spiers, John Bankart, Sally-Ann Cooper, Sally McManus,
Fiona J. Scott, Jane Smith and Freya Tyrer
Background
The epidemiology of autism in adults has relied on untested
projections using childhood research.
Aims
To derive representative estimates of the prevalence of
autism and key associations in adults of all ages and ability
levels.
Method
Comparable clinical diagnostic assessments of 7274 Adult
Psychiatric Morbidity Survey participants combined with a
population case-register survey of 290 adults with intellectual
disability.
Results
The combined prevalence of autism in adults of all ages in
England was 11/1000 (95% CI 3–19/1000). It was higher in
Globally, in 2010, there were an estimated 52 million people with
autism that accounted for more than 111 disability adjusted
life years (DALYs) per 100 000 population.1 Until recently,
information on the epidemiology of autism was based on
childhood studies.2,3 A complete understanding of the nature,
causes and public health impact of autism should consider the
interplay of genetic, epigenetic and environmental associations
throughout the life course.4 There is a widespread but largely
uninformed assumption5,6 that as many as a half of all adults with
autism have intellectual disability, which, if untrue, could distort
planning a balanced range of services for the whole population
with autism. As childhood diagnoses of autism (or of Asperger
syndrome) have increased,7,8 parental fears remain undiminished
concerning the future care of their offspring with little prospect of
funded services when they can no longer provide support.
Two UK studies limited to adults with intellectual disability9,10
suggest autism rates between 70/1000 and 210/1000 but lacked
a validated systematic diagnostic assessment. Recently the
prevalence of autism was reported as 9.8/1000 in the Adult
Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS), a nationally representative
sample of adults capable of giving informed consent and of taking
part in a survey interview, living in private households.11 That
study11 found autism was associated with reduced verbal IQ,
low educational achievement, male gender and epilepsy.12
However, by excluding people without the decision-making
*Findings from this project were presented to: the Annual Meeting of the
Royal College of Psychiatrists, Birmingham, July 2015; IMFAR Conference,
at Donostia, San Sebastian, Spain, 2013. Summary findings and methods of
the IDCR study have appeared in the HSCIC Government Report: Brugha T,
Cooper SA, McManus S, Purdon S, Scott FJ, Spiers NA, et al. Estimating the
Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Conditions in Adults: Extending the 2007
Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. Leeds: The NHS Information Centre, 2012,
which is cited in this article. Tables in the present article do not duplicate
tables in that report.
498
those with moderate to profound intellectual disability (odds
ratio (OR) = 63.5, 95% CI 27.4–147.2). Male gender was a
strong predictor of autism only in those with no or mild
intellectual disability (adjusted OR = 8.5, 95% CI 2.0–34.9;
interaction with gender, P = 0.03).
Conclusions
Few adults with autism have intellectual disability; however,
autism is more prevalent in this population. Autism measures
may miss more women with autism.
Declaration of interest
None.
Copyright and usage
B The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016.
capacity to consent or to take part in a standard survey interview,
or who were living in care settings such as institutions or care
homes for people with intellectual disabilities, adults with
moderate to profound intellectual disability were unrepresented.
Given the strong association between intellectual disability and a
childhood13 and adulthood9 diagnosis of autism, knowledge of
the overall prevalence and age11 and gender2,3 profile of autism
in adults requires adults of all ability levels to be examined using
comparable methods. This paper reports on the epidemiology of
autism drawing on samples combined to reflect the full range of
ability levels in the adult general population. The sample from
the first general population study11 was extended with the
inclusion of representative samples of adults with intellectual
disability omitted from the earlier survey. The aims were to
provide an estimate of the overall prevalence of autism and
to examine key associations in adults at all intellectual ability
levels.
Method
Data from a multiphase survey of adults in private households
throughout England (APMS;11 fieldwork 2007) and a single-phase
survey of a representative group of adults with intellectual disability
drawn from intellectual disability case registers in three areas of
England (the Intellectual Disability Case Register study (IDCR);14
fieldwork 2010) were combined. The APMS employed a stratified
two-phase design based on a random probability sample of one
adult per private household,15 throughout England (as already
described11) followed by diagnostic assessments of respondents
at an increased risk of autism.16
For the IDCR, adults not considered in the APMS, by design,
and living in communal care establishments and private house-
holds, were randomly sampled from three adult intellectual
disability registers in England, in Leicestershire, Lambeth and
 Epidemiology of autism in adults across ability levels

Sheffield, stratified by age, gender and type of residence (detailed
in online supplement DS1). For the adults living in private
households, those judged sufficiently able to have taken part in
the APMS were then excluded. All adults living in communal care
establishments were included, as these establishments were
excluded from the APMS, yet a lot of people with intellectual
disabilities live in such establishments. The sample size in APMS
phase two was chosen to reflect the sample sizes and precision
of psychosis prevalence estimates required to monitor trends in
each APMS survey since the first APMS in 1993.17 The IDCR
sample was designed to achieve similar precision.
APMS participants gave informed consent directly to APMS
phase-one interviewers. In the IDCR, following the English Mental
Capacity Act 2005, consent was taken wherever possible with
input from consultees as appropriate. In keeping with the require-
ments of the ethics committees, participants in Leicestershire were
telephoned by the research team (‘opt-out consent procedure’);
those in Lambeth and Sheffield contacted the research team only
if they wished to take part in the study (‘opt-in consent
procedure’). Ethical approval for the APMS was obtained from
the Royal Free Medical School Research Ethics Committee,
London, UK. Ethical approval for the IDCR was obtained in
Leicestershire from the Derbyshire Ethics Committee and for
Sheffield and Lambeth from the ‘Essex 2’ Research Ethics
Committee, UK.
The 20-item self-completion Autism-spectrum Quotient
(AQ)15,18 was used in phase one of the APMS to select
participants for a second-phase evaluation using detailed clinical
assessments based on Module 4 of the Autism Diagnostic
Observation Schedule (ADOS-Mod4).16 In the IDCR study,
most participants were assessed at first interview with Module 1
of ADOS (ADOS-Mod1),19 which is designed for individuals
who do not consistently use phrase speech. The ADOS-Mod4
was used for verbally fluent adults living in communal care
establishments.
Threshold scores of 12+ on the ADOS-Mod1 and 10+ on
the ADOS-Mod4 were used to define an individual as having
autism. Both the ADOS-Mod1 and ADOS-Mod4 were subject
to validation and calibration work (online supplement DS2)
within the study general population samples11,14 based on
developmental assessments using the Autism Diagnostic Interview
– Revised (ADI-R)20 and the Diagnostic Interview for Social and
Communication Disorders (DISCO)21 and, in the APMS, a
consensus clinical diagnosis evaluation (n = 200).22 In the IDCR
a random sample of 30 carers of individuals who scored high
on the ADOS-Mod1 (57) and a random sample of 30 carers
of individuals who scored low on the ADOS-Mod1 (57) were
invited to take part in an interview by a senior research
psychologist (J.S.) using the DISCO and ADI-R, to test the
accuracy of the ADOS-Mod1 in identifying individuals with
autism. Both studies confirmed the diagnostic thresholds for
autism originally recommended by the developers of the ADOS.19 {
Diagnostic interviewers were experienced in psychological
research, and received an induction and training programme,
run by a senior research psychologist (J.S.), a psychiatrist
(T.S.B.) and a qualified ADOS trainer (F.J.S.). Training experience
was gained through assessing adults living in settings in which
fieldwork subsequently took place. Field interviews did not
commence until the interviewers achieved at least 90% agreement
on ratings of jointly observed ADOS examinations. During
fieldwork, interviewers received supervision sessions and prepared
case vignette reports. They took part in post fieldwork debriefing
to add further contextual information.
Intellectual disability was defined as a significant intellectual
impairment with onset before adulthood and deficits in skills
needed for daily functioning23–25 assessed in the IDCR by the
carer-report version of the Vineland II Adaptive Behaviour
Scales.26 In the APMS, predicted Verbal IQ (V-IQ; range estimate
70–130) was derived using the National Adult Reading Test
(NART).27 The NART requires a high reading age, leaving gaps
in its completion for adults with literacy problems of a wide range
of causes, including mild intellectual disability, dementia, dyslexia,
lack of education. Given this limitation (online supplement
DS2), we were unable to identify those in the APMS with mild
intellectual disability, so they all were included in a category of
none to mild intellectual disability. This assumption is reasonable,
as ability to participate in the APMS would be extremely unlikely
at an ability level of moderate intellectual disabilities or lower. In
both surveys questionnaires were completed covering participant’s
physical and mental health, socioeconomic factors and use of
services, using comparable measures.15
Statistical analysis
Online supplement DS1 describes how the APMS and IDCR
samples were combined for analysis, which is illustrated in online
Fig. DS1. The svytabulate procedure (Stata 12.0 for Windows) was
used to estimate prevalence of autism by intellectual disability, age
and gender; svylogistic was used to fit logistic regression models
for autism by age and gender, taking the complex survey design
into account and adjusting for the presence of epilepsy; confidence
intervals were calculated using Taylor linearisation.28 To examine
whether predictors of autism are the same in those with and
without moderate intellectual disability, models were fitted for
univariable predictors with an interaction term, allowing odds
ratios to vary by disability level. The significance of interaction terms
was tested using an adjusted Wald test29 and where significant
(P50.05) was included in the final multivariable model.
Results
Achieved sample and response rate
Of 13 171 households identified as potentially eligible in the
APMS, 7461 (57%) provided a complete phase-one interview of
whom 849 were selected for phase-two interviews. Of these 630
(74%) completed phase-two assessments: 618 full ADOS-Mod4
assessments were carried out in the APMS. Analyses reported
previously11 found no evidence of non-response bias.
In the IDCR study, response rates were much higher in
Leicestershire under the opt-out ethical approval procedure than

{
Researchers and clinicians using the ADOS-Mod4 in clinical populations should note certain differences in the method we have been using to calculate
ADOS-Mod4 total score (all scores available for secondary analysis in the data archive; see Acknowledgements). The published ADOS-Mod4 algorithm protocol that
was developed in clinical populations19 includes subdomain rules (e.g. a threshold of 10 or greater (10+) on the ADOS-Mod4 total score for identifying cases
of autism,19only if there are scores of 3+ on the Communication subdomain and 6+ on the Reciprocal Social Interaction subdomain). However, calibration by us of
the ADOS-Mod4 score22 for general population research was performed across ADOS-Mod4 score thresholds ranging from 5+ to 13+; for all but two of these
thresholds (7+ and 10+) no subdomain rules exist.10 Therefore, no subdomain rules were used in calibrating the ADOS-Mod4 total score, which we based on the
sum total of the subdomain ratings of Communication and Reciprocal Social Interaction. However, the subdomain rule for identifying cases of ’autism spectrum’
(7+) (scores of 2+ on the Communication subdomain and 4+ on the Reciprocal Social Interaction subdomain) does apply to all cases of ’autism’ (10+ threshold) in
our general population studies using the ADOS.

499
Brugha et al

for Lambeth or Sheffield. There were only five individuals assessed

80 – Men
from Sheffield. Response rates were also higher in communal care
Women
establishments. Overall, 75/118 (64%) establishments took part
and, in these 207/300 (69%) eligible individuals approached took
part. In the IDCR private households, however, only 83/410 (20%) 60 –
individuals took part, of whom 78 were from Leicestershire. Very

Prevalence (%)
few family carers of adults living in private households in Lambeth
or Sheffield responded to the written invitation so, under ‘opt-in’
40 –
procedures, almost all could not be contacted further. Never-
theless, the achieved communal care establishments sample in
Leicestershire compared well with the case-register population
(see online supplement DS3), although the participants in the 20 –
private household sample were more likely to be male and have
more severe intellectual disability.
Of 290 individuals interviewed, 276 were assessed for autism. 0–
Assessments with the remaining 14 were attempted but could not Profound intellectual Moderate/severe None to mild
be completed because participants had profound and multiple disability disability disability
disabilities and assessors were unable to give a confident
assessment. Missing values in the APMS were minimal (51% Fig. 1 Gradient of autism prevalence by intellectual ability;
on all variables): there were 12 (4.3%) individuals in the IDCR combined sample.
study who had no Vineland assessment but were assessed for Intellectual ability is classified using the Vineland II caregiver-rating form for the
Intellectual Disability Case Register (IDCR) sample; those in the Adult Psychiatric
autism. Sensitivity analyses with these sequentially counted as Mobility Survey (APMS) sample are assumed to have no or mild intellectual disability.
having and not having intellectual disability had no effect on
the findings. Other missing values in the IDCR study were
infrequent and are shown in the tables where they amount to
more than 5% of n.
online Table DS4 for a version of Table 1 covering a larger number
of characteristics). The increased prevalence of South Asian
Participant characteristics by intellectual ability ethnicity reflects the location of most of the IDCR sample in
Participants with moderate to profound intellectual disability were Leicestershire (online Table DS4). Those in the sample with
more likely to be male, younger, and were more ethnically diverse moderate to profound intellectual disability were more likely to
than those with no or mild intellectual disability (see Table 1 and be disabled and less likely to have ever worked.

Table 1 Sample characteristics a

No or mild/borderline intellectual disability
Moderate to profound intellectual disability IDCR no or mild/borderline APMS
Characteristic IDCR (n = 217) intellectual disability (n = 47) (n = 7274)

Gender, n (%)
Male 121 (55.8) 19 (40.4) 3130 (43.0)
Female 96 (44.2) 28 (59.6) 4144 (57.0)
Age group, n (%)
18–29 38 (17.5) 13 (27.7) 921 (12.7)
30–44 62 (28.6) 18 (38.3) 1966 (27.0)
45–64 97 (44.7) 10 (21.3) 2409 (33.1)
65+ 20 (9.2) 6 (12.8) 1978 (27.2)
Intellectual ability, n (%)b
Profound intellectual disability 125 (57.6) – –
Severe intellectual disability 58 (26.7) – –
Moderate intellectual disability 34 (15.7) – –
Mild/borderline intellectual disability – 47 (100) –
IQ 70–85 – – 1006 (13.8)
IQ 86–100 – – 1829 (25.1)
IQ 101+ – – 3916 (53.8)
IQ not assessed – – 523 (7.2)
Activities of daily living (ADL)
ADL difficulties, median (IQR)c 7 (7, 7) 5 (4, 7) 0 (0, 1)
ADL with a lot of difficulty, median (IQR) 6 (4, 7) 2 (0, 3) 0 (0, 0)
Participants with missing data on ADL, n (%) 13 (6.0) 8 (17.0) 18 (0.2)
Work, n (%)
Never in paid work 185 (85.3) 30 (63.8) 230 (3.2)
Ever in paid work 10 (4.6) 11 (23.4) 6975 (95.9)
Missing 22 (10.1) 6 (12.8) 69 (0.9)

IDCR, Intellectual Disability Case Register; APMS, Adult Psychiatric Mobility Survey; IQR, interquartile range.
a. See online Table DS4 for a more detailed version of this table covering a larger number of variables.
b. Classified using the Vineland II caregiver-rating form26 for the Intellectual Disability Case Register (IDCR) sample and the National Adult Reading
Test (NART) for Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) sample. Twelve adults from the IDCR study were excluded because they could not be classified.
c. Difficulty with seven ADL including personal care, getting out and about and using transport, medical care, household activities, practical activities, paperwork and managing money.

500
 Epidemiology of autism in adults across ability levels

Autism prevalence by age, gender and intellectual
ability
There were 14 men and 4 women with autism in the APMS
subsample, and 49 men and 40 women with autism in the IDCR
subsample. The prevalence of autism in England, estimated from
the combined reweighted sample, was 1.1% (95% CI 0.3–1.9%).
Because people with moderate to profound intellectual disability
make up just 0.3% of the total population, overall associations
of autism with age and gender for the population as a whole are
unchanged by the inclusion of rates for people with intellectual
disability. There was a gradient of autism prevalence by
intellectual ability (Fig. 1), with prevalence considerably higher
in those with moderate to profound intellectual disability
(39.3%, 95% CI 31.0–48.4, compared with 1.0%, 95% CI 0.4–
2.2 in those with no or mild intellectual disability (OR = 63.5,
95% CI 27.4–147.2)).
In the population with moderate to profound intellectual dis-
ability, prevalence of autism was not specifically associated with
gender, being 42.3% (95% CI 31.1–54.3) in men and 35.2%
(95% CI 23.5–49.0 ) in women, P = 0.43 (Table 2). However, in
the population with no or mild intellectual disability, prevalence
was considerably higher in men at 1.9% (95% CI 0.8–4.2) than
in women 0.2% (95% CI 0.0–0.7). The interaction between
intellectual disability and gender on the prevalence of autism
was statistically significant (P = 0.02; Wald test) and remained
statistically significant when adjusted for age and presence of
epilepsy (Table 3). There was evidence of a small decline in the
prevalence of autism with age, statistically significant only in those
with moderate to profound intellectual disability (Table 2).
Discussion
This standardised whole population sample case-finding study has
yielded new understanding of the prevalence of autism and its
associations in adults with intellectual disability, gender and age.
The usual male gender excess for autism in childhood2,3 was not
evident among adults with intellectual disability, showing a
significant gender6intellectual disability interaction on autism
prevalence, with men and women with at least moderate
intellectual disability having similar prevalence. Previous studies
of adults with intellectual disability have found a higher rate of
autism in men than women9,30,31 although not as high as for
the rest of the population.32 Childhood population estimates33
have reported a male:female ratio of 2.1 : 1 for children with
IQ570 and 3.7 : 1 for those without; an administrative study34
also found that the gender ratio diminished with increasing
disability level in children; the Global Burden of Disease (GBD)
project estimate,1 based on childhood, incidence and mortality
data, was three times commoner in males than females with
autistic disorders (autism with delay in language or cognitive
development) and over four times commoner for other forms of
autism.
Strengths and limitations
The strength of this study lies in the comprehensive epidemiological
sampling of adults of all ability levels in defined geographic areas
and the use of direct diagnostic assessments of autism carefully
validated in the study samples with the aim of achieving comparable
measurement across intellectual ability levels. However, there is
potential for selection bias on the estimate of autism prevalence
in the IDCR study as a result of the low response in the IDCR
private household sample. Detailed investigation of the pattern
of non-response by age, gender, residence and presence of autistic
traits in Leicestershire (online supplement DS3), makes type II
error unlikely (i.e. failure to find a relationship between gender
and prevalence of intellectual disability where it really exists).
We used moderate intellectual disability assessed by the
Vineland II caregiver-rating form in the IDCR as a threshold for
intellectual disability in the logistic regression, with none or mild
intellectual disability imputed for the APMS sample. This measure
is consistent with other recent prevalence studies of adults,35,36
giving a standardised but more exclusive measure of intellectual
disability. Our results were substantially unchanged when we
reanalysed with intellectual disability defined pragmatically as lack

Table 2 Univariate predictors of autism by intellectual disability a

Moderate to profound intellectual disabilityb No or mild/borderline intellectual disability
P for variable6intellectual
Characteristic OR (95% CI) P OR (95% CI) P disability interaction

Gender
Women 1.00 1.00
Men 1.35 (0.64–2.83) 0.43 8.97 (2.20–36.52) 0.002 0.02
Age (year) 0.96 (0.93–1.00) 0.008 0.98 (0.92–1.04) 0.51 0.61

a. Weighted to represent the English population by age, gender, intellectual disability and type of residence.
b. Classified using the Vineland II caregiver-rating form in the Intellectual Disability Case Register (IDCR); those in the Adult Psychiatric Mobility Survey (APMS) sample are assumed to
have no or mild intellectual disability.

Table 3 Multivariate predictors of autism by intellectual disability, with gender6intellectual disability interaction a
OR (95% CI)
Moderate to profound No or mild/borderline P-value for variable6intellectual
Characteristic All intellectual disabilityb intellectual disability disability interaction

Gender
Women – 1.00 1.00 –
Men – 1.31 (0.58–2.99) 8.46 (2.05–34.80)c 0.03
Age (year) 0.98 (0.92–1.05) – – –

a. Reweighted to represent the English population by age, gender, intellectual disability and type of residence and adjusted for carer or self-reported epilepsy or fits since age 16.
b. Classified using the Vineland II caregiver-rating form in the Intellectual Disability Case Register (IDCR); those in the Adult Psychiatric Mobility Survey (APMS) sample are assumed
to have no or mild intellectual disability.
c. P50.01.

501
Brugha et al
of decision-making capacity to consent and to participate in a
household survey. This is closer to a threshold of mild intellectual
disability, but with unavoidable undercounting of those with mild
disability in the APMS.
Analysis was limited by the small number of individuals with
autism, particularly in the APMS sample. The presented analyses
are weighted to represent the national population by age, gender,
intellectual disability and type of residence. Calculation of the
IDCR weights was subject to error as it relied upon incomplete
official statistics, and on the assumption that the three case-register
areas represent the English population as a whole. Detailed
sensitivity analyses found that the effects of estimating unknown
population quantities on the overall prevalence estimates was
minimal, giving prevalence of between 1.1 and 1.2%, regardless
of assumptions made.37
Interpretation of our findings
There are various hypotheses that could account for the gender
pattern we found: women with autism could be more severely
impaired38 or there could be more ‘missed’ cases of autism in
women without intellectual disability. Missed cases could result from
male bias in autism diagnostic markers;39 female presentation of
autism may differ from male presentation and measures may be
less able to detect the female presentation.39,40 Autism in women
of average or above average intelligence may be ‘masked’ by other
conditions, such as eating disorders,41 anxiety disorders42 and
borderline personality disorders.43 Such women may be better
than women with intellectual disability at hiding their difficulties
by imitating social interactions,44 having better language skills,
different special interests, less hyperactivity and aggression.45 If
more able women with autism are not diagnosed or are incorrectly
diagnosed, then the prevalence of autism could be underestimated
and their needs unmet. Biological theories for the male excess
of autism46 may also benefit from reconsideration. Gender
determination and autism could have a common cause, i.e.
intrauterine levels of testosterone. Differences in gender ratio
could reflect different causes for autism. One small study (n = 94
individuals with autism)47 reported a male:female gender ratio that
was closer to 2 : 1 in individuals with genetic, magnetic resonance
imaging or clinical morphological abnormalities and found gender
ratios closer to 8 : 1 in individuals without these abnormalities.
Although almost two in five adults with moderate to profound
intellectual disability had autism, higher than expected based
on previous research,9,32,48 only 1% of adults with no or mild
intellectual disability had autism. But because moderate to
profound intellectual disability affects only 0.3% of all adults9
the point estimate for the prevalence of autism in the population
as a whole only changed from 1.0 to 1.1% when adults with
intellectual disability were included in the overall prevalence
estimate. This finding runs counter to a widespread assumption
that as many as half of adults who have autism have intellectual
disability.6
Only a small decline in the prevalence of autism with
increasing age in adults with moderate to profound intellectual
disability emerged, the same in magnitude to that reported
previously in the household population,11 but the finding was
only statistically significant in the intellectually disabled
population and not in the combined or household population
samples. The GBD1 showed no clear evidence of a change in
prevalence of autism between 1990 and 2010 but as there was
no information on prevalence in adulthood, age pattern findings
were informed entirely by remission and mortality data. Although
our finding does not support the suggestion that rates of autism
are increasing rapidly (although diagnosis may be),7,8 further
502
independent work on this association using case-finding population
research methods is needed.
It was noted that research-identified individuals with autism
reported previously in the able household population11 had not
been recognised or diagnosed by health services. New findings
reported here suggest that the research case-finding measures used
may also fail to identify women with autism who do not have
intellectual disabilities, possibly adding further to the invisibility
of autism in society. The picture that emerges is of a large
population of adults who are significantly disabled whose needs
remain unmet because they are not recognised, particularly when
they do not have intellectual disabilities. The clinical, health and
economic implications are potentially enormous and urgently
merit the attention of further research.
We acknowledge that for some there may be a difficulty in
placing the present prevalence work in a familiar autism diagnostic
context. The instruments used in our survey, including the ADOS,
in many ways are reflective of, but are not directly derived from
either of the classification systems current when we developed the
study. These were the ICD-1049 and the DSM-IV-TR50 diagnostic
criteria for pervasive developmental disorder (including childhood
autism and Asperger disorder) both primarily developed for use
in childhood. We believe that the strength of our approach to
assessing autism in adulthood is that it is achieved in such a
way as to make future replication and reliable comparison by
independent researchers possible in other countries and
populations. All such research requires a trade-off between
reproducibility and clinical familiarity and usage. We believe that
for a first-ever epidemiological study in adults we have taken the
most appropriate line using the most relevant instruments, with
clearly established reliability, supported by validation studies.51
In future work additional clinical information will be collected
with the intention of making it possible to describe findings in
relation to more recent developments in the classification of
autism such as the DSM-552 and ICD-11 autism spectrum
disorder criteria currently being finalised and possibly also to
future such developments in classification.
Traolach S. Brugha, MD(NUI) FRCPsych, Nicola Spiers, MSc PhD, Department
of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester; John Bankart, MSc PhD,
Department of Primary Care and Health Sciences, University of Keele, Stoke-on-Trent;
Sally-Ann Cooper, MD FRCPsych, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of
Glasgow, Gartnavel Royal Hospital, Glasgow; Sally McManus, MSc, NatCen Social
Research, London; Fiona J. Scott, PhD Cpsychol, Jane Smith, MSc, Freya Tyrer,
MSc, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leciester, Leciester, UK
Correspondence: Traolach S. Brugha, Department of Health Sciences,
University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester
LE5 4PW, UK. Email: tsb@le.ac.uk
First received 31 Aug 2015, final revision 13 Dec 2015, accepted 21 Jan 2016
Funding
The study was funded by the Department of Health, London, through the Health and Social
Care Information Centre, Leeds, UK. The funder played a substantial role in determining the
content of the surveys, but played no part in the design, analysis or interpretation of this
study, in drafting this article or in the decision to submit it for publication.
Acknowledgements
Our recently deceased colleague Professor Howard Meltzer played a key role in the design
and development of this study; we would like to express our appreciation for his insight,
knowledge and contribution. We acknowledge all the carers and adults with intellectual
disability who participated in this study. We are grateful to Susan Purdon for advice and
comments on study design and analysis and to Abdolreza Ashtarikiani, Sabyasachi Bhaumik,
Gyles Glover, Richard Mills and Patricia Howlin for advice. Anonymised data arising from this
survey have been archived following standard procedures by the UK Data Service (https://
discover.ukdataservice.ac.uk/catalogue?sn = 6379). As the survey involved a case register,
particular care was taken to ensure that the data were anonymised, including using a new
numeric identifier, removing place of recruitment and presenting broad age groups. Cross-
tabulations of all variables archived were conducted to ensure that no fewer than six
individuals fell into each ‘cell’.

References
1 Baxter AJ, Brugha TS, Erskine HE, Scheurer RW, Vos T, Scott JG. The
epidemiology and global burden of autism spectrum disorders. Psychol Med
2015; 45: 601–13.
2 Fombonne E. Epidemiology of autistic disorder and other pervasive
developmental disorders. J Clin Psychiatry 2005; 66 (suppl 10): 3–8.
3 Newschaffer CJ, Croen LA, Daniels J, Giarelli E, Grether JK, Levy SE, et al.
The epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders. Annu Rev Public Health
2007; 28: 235–8.
4 Bresnahan M, Brugha T, Susser E. How a life course perspective shifts
the framework for autism research. In A Life Course Approach to Mental
Disorders (eds KC Koenen, S Rudenstine, E Susser, S Galea). Oxford
University Press, 2013.
5 National Audit Office. Supporting People with Autism through Adulthood.
NAO, 2009.
6 National Audit Office. Memorandum: Progress in Implementing the 2010
Adult Autism Strategy. NAO, 2012.
7 Gee A. Californian autism clusters leave researchers baffled. Lancet 2010;
376: 1451–2.
8 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of Autism Spectrum
Disorders — Autism and Developmental Disabilities Monitoring Network, 14
Sites, United States, 2008. Report No: Vol 61, No 3. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 2012.
9 Cooper S-A, Smiley E, Morrison J, Williamson A, Allan L. Mental ill-health
in adults with intellectual disabilities: prevalence and associated factors.
Br J Psychiatry 2007; 190: 27–35.
10 Bhaumik S, Tyrer FC, McGrother C, Ganghadaran SK. Psychiatric service
use and psychiatric disorders in adults with intellectual disability. J Intellect
Disabil Res 2008; 52: 986–95.
11 Brugha TS, McManus S, Bankart J, Scott F, Purdon S, Smith J, et al.
Epidemiology of autism spectrum disorders in adults in the community in
England. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011; 68: 459–65.
12 Rai D, Kerr MP, McManus S, Jordanova V, Lewis G, Brugha TS. Epilepsy and
psychiatric comorbidity: a nationally representative population-based study.
Epilepsia 2012; 53: 1095–103.
13 Baird G, Simonoff E, Pickles A, Chandler S, Loucas T, Meldrum D, et al.
Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of
children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP).
Lancet 2006; 368: 210–5.
14 Brugha T, Cooper SA, McManus S, Purdon S, Scott FJ, Spiers NA, et al.
Estimating the Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Conditions in Adults:
Extending the 2007 Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey. The NHS Information
Centre, 2012.
15 McManus S, Meltzer H, Brugha T, Bebbington P, Jenkins R. Adult Psychiatric
Morbidity in England, 2007. Results of a Household Survey. The NHS
Information Centre for Health and Social Care, 2009.
16 Lord C, Rutter M, Le Couteur A. The autism diagnostic observation schedule-
generic: a standard measure of social and communication deficits associated
with the spectrum of autism. J Autism Dev Disord 2002; 30: 205–23.
17 Jenkins R, Lewis G, Bebbington P, Brugha T, Farrell M, Gill B, et al. The
national psychiatric morbidity surveys of great Britain– initial findings from
the household survey. Psychol Med 1997; 27: 775–89.
18 Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Skinner R, Martin J, Clubley E. The autism-
spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning
autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. J Autism Dev
Disord 2001; 31: 5–17.
19 Lord C, Rutter M, DiLavore PC, Risi S. Autism Diagnostic Observation
Schedule ADOS Manual. Western Psychological Services, 2002.
20 Lord C, Rutter M, Le Couteur A. Autism Diagnostic Interview – Revised: a
revised version of a diagnostic interview for caregivers of individuals with
possible pervasive developmental disorders. J Autism Dev Disord 1994; 24:
659–85.
21 Wing L, Leekam SR, Libby SJ, Gould J, Larcombe M. The Diagnostic Interview
for Social and Communication Disorders: background, inter-rater reliability
and clinical use. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2002; 43: 307–25.
22 Brugha TS, McManus S, Smith J, Scott FJ, Meltzer H, Purdon S, et al.
Validating two survey methods for identifying cases of autism spectrum
disorder among adults in the community. Psychol Med 2012; 42: 647–56.
23 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (4th edn). American Psychiatric Association, 1994.
24 Department of Health. Valuing People. A new strategy for Learning Disability
for the 21st century (White Paper). TSO (The Stationery Office), 2001.
Epidemiology of autism in adults across ability levels
25 World Health Organization. ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural
Disorders: Clinical Descriptions and Diagnostic Guidelines. WHO, 1992.
26 Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, Balla DA. Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales:
Second Edition (Vineland II), Survey Interview Form/Caregiver Rating Form.
Pearson Assessments, 2005.
27 Nelson HE, Willison J. National Adult Reading Test (NART). Report No: 2nd
Edition. NFER-Nelson, 1991.
28 Binder DA. On the variance of asymptotically normal estimators from
complex surveys. Int Stat Rev 1983; 51: 279–92.
29 Eltinge JL, Sribney WM. svy5: estimates of linear combinations and
hypothesis tests for survey data. Stata Tech Bull 1966; 31: 31–42 (http://
www.stata-press.com/journals/stbcontents/stb31.pdf).
30 Bhaumik S, Tyrer FC, McGrother C, Ganghadaran SK. Psychiatric service use
and psychiatric disorders in adults with intellectual disability. J Intellect
Disabil Res 2008; 52: 986–95.
31 Saemundsen E, Juliusson H, Hjaltested S, Gunnarsdottir T, Halldorsdottir T,
Hreidarsson S, et al. Prevalence of autism in an urban population of adults
with severe intellectual disabilities – a preliminary study. J Intellect Disabil
Res 2010; 54: 727–35.
32 Wing L. Sex ratios in early childhood autism and related conditions.
Psychiatry Res 1981; 5: 129–37.
33 Saemundsen E, Magnusson P, Georgsdottir I, Egilsson E, Rafnsson V.
Prevalence of autism spectrum disorders in an Icelandic birth cohort.
BMJ Open 2013; 3: e002748.
34 Lin JD, Sung CL, Lin LP, Hsu SW, Chien WC, Su SL, et al. Ten-year trend
analysis of autism severity: a nationwide population-based register study.
Res Autism Spectr Disord 2011; 5: 570–4.
35 McConkey R, Mulvany F, Barron S. Adult persons with intellectual disabilities
on the island of Ireland. J Intellect Disabil Res 2006; 50: 227–36.
36 Bailey NM. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in adults with moderate to
profound learning disabilities. Adv Ment Health Learn Disabil 2008; 1: 36–44.
37 Brugha T, Cooper SA, McManus S, Purdon S, Scott FJ, Spiers NA, et al.
Estimating the Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Conditions in Adults: Data
quality and methodology document. NHS Information Centre, 2012.
38 Holtmann M, Bolte S, Poustka F. Autism spectrum disorders: sex differences
in autistic behaviour domains and coexisting psychopathology. Dev Med
Child Neurol 2007; 49: 361–6.
39 Gould J, Ashton-Smith J. Missed diagnosis or misdiagnosis: girls and women
on the autism spectrum. Good Autism Pract 2011; 12: 34–41.
40 Lai MC, Lombardo MV, Pasco G, Ruigrok AN, Wheelwright SJ, Sadek SA, et al.
A behavioral comparison of male and female adults with high functioning
autism spectrum conditions. PLoS One 2011; 6: e20835.
41 Nilsson EW, Gillberg C, Gillberg IC, Rastam M. Ten-year follow-up of
adolescent-onset anorexia nervosa: personality disorders. J Am Acad Child
Adolesc Psychiatry 1999; 38: 1389–95.
42 Kopp S, Gillberg C. Selective mutism: a population-based study: a research
note. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 1997; 38: 257–62.
43 Rydén G, Rydén E, Hetta J. Borderline personality disorder and autism
spectrum disorder in females – a cross-sectional study. Clin Neuropsychiatry
2008; 5: 22–30.
44 Holliday-Willey L. Pretending to be Normal: Living with Asperger’s Syndrome.
Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 1999.
45 Gillberg C. The Biology of the Autistic Syndromes (3rd edn). Cambridge
University Press, 2000.
46 Baron-Cohen S, Lombardo MV, Auyeung B, Ashwin E, Chakrabarti B,
Knickmeyer R. Why are autism spectrum conditions more prevalent in
males? PLoS Biol 2011; 9: e1001081.
47 Miles JH, Hillman RE. Value of a clinical morphology examination in autism.
Am J Med Genet 2000; 91: 245–53.
48 Saemundsen E, Juliusson H, Hjaltested S, Gunnarsdottir T, Halldorsdottir T,
Hreidarsson S, et al. Prevalence of autism in an urban population of adults
with severe intellectual disabilities – a preliminary study. J Intellect Disabil
Res 2010; 54: 727–35.
49 World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification of Mental and
Behavioural Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria for Research. WHO, 1993.
50 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (4th edn, text revision) (DSM-IV-TR). American Psychiatric
Association, 2000.
51 Brugha TS, McManus S, Smith J, Scott FJ, Meltzer H, Purdon S, et al.
Validating two survey methods for identifying cases of autism spectrum
disorder among adults in the community. Psychol Med 2012; 42: 647–56.
52 American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (5th edn) (DSM-5). APA, 2013.
503
Data supplement to Brugha et al. Epidemiology of autism in adults across age
groups and ability levels. Br J Psychiatry doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.174649

Online supplement DS1: Sampling details of the Intellectual Disability Case Register

study (IDCR)

In order to achieve a complete sample of adults in England two groups of adults not

considered in the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) by design needed to be

identified: those living in a private household but incapable of taking part in a survey

interview because of intellectual disability, and those not included in the APMS sample due

to being resident in a communal care establishment (or ‘institution’). The IDCR was based

on samples drawn from three registers of adults with intellectual disability in England,

located in Leicestershire, Lambeth and Sheffield, although the achieved sample in Sheffield

was very small. The adult prevalence of intellectual disability, defined by significant

intellectual impairment (WHO definition) with adaptive skill deficits, using the registers at the

three sites was within the expected range (4.9, 4.3 and 5.4/ 1000 of the population of

Leicestershire, Lambeth and Sheffield respectively (National Statistics (1)). These registers

have been used extensively for research (2) (3) (4).

A random sample of individuals on the registers from private households with addresses

eligible for the APMS, was selected, stratified by age, sex and type of residence. Participants

were then excluded if they were judged to have decision-making capacity to consent and

sufficient ability to participate in the APMS. Interviewers initially made this judgement over

the telephone and again when visiting the potential participant in their own home (if they had

not already been excluded following the initial telephone conversation). The study also

included residents of communal care establishments, comprising any domestic group setting

with an intrinsic care function, such as a residential home or nursing home. For

Leicestershire and Sheffield, the IDCR study adopted a two stage sampling design for

communal care establishments. The first stage involved randomly selecting establishments

1
with four or more residents, with selection probabilities proportional to the number of eligible

residents. The second stage involved randomly selecting four participants from each of the

chosen communal care establishments stratified by sex and age. For Lambeth, which had

fewer communal care establishments, all establishments with 3 or more residents were

chosen and all residents were sampled.

Consent was obtained following the English mental capacity act, 2005, for adults who did not

have decision making capacity to consent to participate in the research. We excluded

participants who could not speak English and had non-English speaking carers. Sampled

participants, carers or managers were sent a letter of invitation, with information about the

study. Participants in Leicestershire were telephoned by the research team ('opt-out consent

procedure'); carers and participants in Lambeth contacted the research team only if they

wished to take part in the study ('opt-in consent procedure').

Combining the APMS and IDCR Samples for Analysis

In the IDCR study the primary sampling unit was the communal care establishment or, in the

case of those in private households, the individual. In the APMS the primary sampling units

were individual or small groups of postcode sectors. The datasets were appended, giving a

total of 268 strata, 260 by socioeconomic status within region from the APMS and 8 by age,

sex and residence (communal establishment or private household) from the IDCR study.

APMS data were weighted to account for the complex sampling design, including two-stage

sampling for autism as described elsewhere (5). The combined data (figure) were weighted

to represent the English population by age, sex, intellectual disability and type of residence.

Post-stratification weights were calculated using data from official statistics, including the

mid-year population estimates derived from the 2001 census and data on intellectual

disability from the Social Services Activity Statistics and the case registers. Full details are

given in a data quality and methodology report (6).

2
Figure: Illustrating the calculation of the combined autism prevalence estimate

Online supplement DS2 Possible limitations in the comparability of our assessment of

intellectual disability across the APMS and IDCR samples and in the assessment of

autism in the IDCR sample

Both ADOS-Mod1 and ADOS-Mod4 have been carefully validated in the study samples with

the aim of achieving comparable measurement across intellectual ability levels. There is

some concern that autism assessment in the intellectual disability study with the ADOS-

Mod1 achieved only moderate sensitivity on validation. Assessors suggested that this may

be due to assessment tasks that are age-inappropriate for the adult population, for example

using bubbles, dolls and toy cars. It is possible that missed cases at older ages may

3
account for the decline in prevalence of autism with age found in the intellectual disability

study; alternatively, there may be an earlier age of death in the group with both autism and

intellectual disability (14;15). It is also possible that older people may do better in

assessments having adapted to their symptoms.

Online Supplement DS3: Examination of Potential for Selection Bias in the IDCR

The 276 adults who were assessed for autism had a similar age structure to the non-

participants from the case registers, but with some oversampling of women (Table DS1).

Further information was recorded for 97% (n=3080) of those on the Leicestershire case

register only. This included a measure of autistic traits previously validated against clinical

diagnoses (16).

The traits were poor quality of social interaction, lack of empathy, simple stereotypies and

elaborate routine, usually carer-reported, but self-reported for a small minority who were

interviewed for the case register on their own.

In the Leicestershire sample, participants and non-participants in communal care

establishments had similar intellectual disability severity, ethnicity, epilepsy and autistic trait

profiles (Table DS1). Participants in private households were younger, had more severe

intellectual disability and greater autism, prevalence than non-participants. On restricting the

sample to adults with moderate to profound ID, the prevalence of epilepsy was marginally

higher among participants (30.6% and 24.3% for participants and non-participants

respectively) and the mean number of autistic traits was similar (0.72 and 0.74 for

participants and non-participants respectively).

Prevalence of two or more autistic traits in communal care establishments was 22.6% in

men and 21.4% in women, compared to 14.4% and 9.9% respectively in the private

household population. In the Leicestershire Communal Care Establishment sample, men

with two or more autistic traits were somewhat oversampled compared to those with no or

one trait, while the proportion of women with two or more traits was identical in participants

4
and non-participants (Table DS2). In the private household sample numbers were too small

to assess possible non-response bias. For the unexpected number of female autism cases

in the intellectual disability population to be artefactual, would require considerable under-

sampling of autistic men and oversampling of autistic women in the IDCR achieved sample.

There is no evidence of this in the comparison with the Leicestershire populations (Table

DS3), although assessment was limited by small numbers in the private household sample.

While there is some potential for selection bias on the estimate of autism prevalence in the

IDCR study private household sample, bias sufficient to undermine our finding of an

interaction between sex and intellectual disability on the prevalence of autism is implausible.

The IDCR sample is drawn largely from Leicestershire, a population that compares closely to

the English population on socio-demographic characteristics (Table DS2), with the exception

of greater numbers of South Asian ethnicity, mainly resident in the City of Leicester. The

proportion of school pupils with an official statement of special education needs, and the

proportion in special (education need) schools, is very similar to England as a whole,

suggesting that a honeypot effect is unlikely. There are approximately 0.5m people living in

the City of Leicester and surrounding built up area, 0.3m living in other urban areas (market

towns or other conurbations with population>10,000), and 0.2m living in rural areas.

Leicestershire lacks a major conurbation, which may be relevant given evidence from the

Leicestershire case register that autism is more prevalent in rural areas (7), but our sample

did include limited numbers from the London Borough of Lambeth.

In conclusion, the ‘opt-in’ consent procedure in Lambeth and Sheffield, proved an almost

insuperable barrier to recruitment, meaning that the IDCR sample is largely based upon the

Leicestershire adult population case register. The Communal Establishment population in

Leicestershire was successfully surveyed, with 64% of establishments and 69% of eligible

individuals approached taking part. However, the response rate in private households in

Leicestershire was low at 35%. Difficulties in recruiting adults with intellectual disability into

research studies have been well documented (8-10). Many refusals were because carers

5
were worn out with a lifetime of caring. However, studies of autism in adults are very rare,

and the response rate is consistent with others (11;12). Only, the Glasgow cohort (13)

achieved a response rate of 70.6%, based on exceptional quality of routine data coding, and

collaborative working between the clinical team and research team in providing information

and consenting, but it did not have a validated systematic diagnostic assessment.

Additional References

(1) National Statistics. Mid-year population statistics. Durham: NOMIS; 2010.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pop
-estimate/population-estimates-for-uk--england-and-wales--scotland-and-northern-
ireland/mid-2010-population-estimates/index.html

(2) Roeleveld N, Zielhuis GA, Gabreels F. The prevalence of mental retardation: a critical review
of recent literature. Dev Med Child Neurol 1997 Feb;39(2):125-32.

(3) Institute of Public Care. Estimating the prevalence of severe learning disability in adults
(working paper). Oxford: Institute of Public Care via Projecting Adult Needs and Service
Information (PANSI); 2009.

(4) Parrott R, Emerson E, Hatton C, Wolstenholme J. Future demand for residential provision for
people with learning disabilities. Manchester: Hester Adrian Research Centre, University of
Manchester; 1997.

(5) Brugha TS, McManus S, Bankart J, Scott F, Purdon S, Smith J, et al. Epidemiology of autism
spectrum disorders in adults in the community in England. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2011
May;68(5):459-65.

(6) Brugha T, Cooper SA, McManus S, Purdon S, Scott FJ, Spiers NA, et al. Estimating the
Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Conditions in Adults: Data quality and methodology
document. Leeds: The NHS Information Centre; 2012 Jan 31.

(7) Kiani R, Tyrer F, Hodgson A, Berkin N, Bhaumik S. Urban-rural differences in the nature and
prevalence of mental ill-health in adults with intellectual disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res
2013 Feb;57(2):119-27.

(8) Evenhuis H, van SJ, Vink M, Weerdenburg C, van ZB, Stilma J. Obstacles in large-scale
epidemiological assessment of sensory impairments in a Dutch population with intellectual
disabilities. J Intellect Disabil Res 2004 Nov;48(Pt 8):708-18.

(9) Lacono T. Issues of informed consent in conducting medical research involving people with
intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2003;16:41-51.

(10) Oliver PC, Piachaud J, Done J, Regan A, Cooray S, Tyrer P. Difficulties in conducting a
randomized controlled trial of health service interventions in intellectual disability:
implications for evidence-based practice. J Intellect Disabil Res 2002 May;46(Pt 4):340-5.

6
(11) Bhaumik S, Tyrer FC, McGrother C, Ganghadaran SK. Psychiatric service use and psychiatric
disorders in adults with intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res 2008 Nov;52(11):986-95.

(12) McManus S, Meltzer H, Brugha T, Bebbington P, Jenkins R. Adult Psychiatric Morbidity in

England, 2007. Results of a household survey. London: The NHS Information Centre for
health and social care; 2009.

(13) Cooper SA, Smiley E, Morrison J, Williamson A, Allan L. Mental ill-health in adults with
intellectual disabilities: prevalence and associated factors. Br J Psychiatry 2007 Jan;190:27-
35.

(14) Gillberg C, Billstedt E, Sundh V, Gillberg IC. Mortality in autism: a prospective longitudinal
community-based study. J Autism Dev Disord 2010;40(3):352-7.

(15) Bilder D, Botts EL, Smith KR, Pimentel R, Farley M, Viskochil J, et al. Excess mortality and
causes of death in autism spectrum disorders: a follow up of the 1980s Utah/UCLA autism
epidemiologic study. J Autism Dev Disord 2013 May;43(5):1196-204.
(16) Bhaumik S, Tyrer F, Barrett M, Tin N, McGrother CW, Kiani R. The relationship between
carers' report of autistic traits and clinical diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders in adults
with intellectual disability. Res Dev Disabil 2010 May-Jun;31(3):705-12

7
Table DS1. Comparison of Case Register Characteristics between Participants
and Non-Participants, by residence and setting
Participants Non-participants
with an autism enrolled on case
assessment registers when
sampled for IDCR

Communal care establishments

All (N=197) (N=1697)
Age (when sampled) 47.4±13.7 49.5±14.9
Sex
Male 103 (52.3) 960 (56.6)

Leicestershire only (N=163) (N=886)

a
Autistic traits
≥2 traits 40 (24.5) 188 (21.2)
≤1 trait 121 (74.2) 683 (77.1)
Autistic traits missing 2 (1.2) 15 (1.7)
Ethnic group
White 147 (90.2) 794 (89.6)
South Asian 14 (8.6) 47 (5.3)
Other / Not known 2 (1.2) 45 (5.1)
b
Intellectual Disability Severity
Profound 42 (25.8) 269 (30.4)
Severe 61 (37.4) 276 (31.2)
Moderate 20 (12.3) 132 (14.9)
Mild/borderline 31 (19.0) 128 (14.4)
Not known 9 (5.5) 81 (9.1)
Epilepsy
Present 41 (25.2) 224 (25.3)
Absent 110 (67.5) 574 (64.8)
Not known 12 (7.4) 88 (9.9)

Private households
All (N=79) (N=4444)
Age (when sampled) 36.0±14.1 38.0±14.5
Sex
Male 41 (51.9) 2551 (57.4)

Leicestershire only (N=74) (N=2020)

a
Autistic traits
≥2 traits 8 (10.8) 246 (12.2)
≤1 trait 63 (85.1) 1731 (85.7)
Missing 3 (4.1) 43 (2.1)
Ethnic group
White 53 (71.6) 1490 (73.8)
South Asian 15 (20.3) 385 (19.1)
Other / Not known 6 (8.1) 145 (7.2)
b
Intellectual Disability Severity
Profound 22 (28.7) 337 (16.7)
Severe 29 (39.2) 532 (26.3)
Moderate 11 (14.9) 473 (23.4)
Mild/borderline 6 (8.1) 466 (23.1)
Not known 6 (8.1) 212 (10.5)
c
Epilepsy
Present 23 (31.1) 393 (19.5)
Absent 47 (63.5) 1372 (67.9)
Not known 4 (5.4) 255 (12.6)

8
Plus-minus values are means±SD
a. Poor quality of social interaction, limited empathy, presence of elaborate routines
and presence of stereotypies (Bhaumik 2010; Holmes et al. 1982)
b. As measured using the Leicestershire ID Scale (Tyrer et al. 2008)
c. Self- or carer-reported epilepsy or fits since age 16.

9
Table DS2. Comparison of Leicestershire Case Register Characteristics between
Participants and Non-Participants by Sex.
Participants Non-participants
with an autism enrolled on case
assessment registers when
sampled for IDCR

Communal care establishments

Males (N=92) (N=530)
Autistic traits†
≥2 traits 25 (27.2) 113 (21.3)
≤1 trait 65 (70.7) 409 (77.2)
Missing 2 (2.2) 8 (1.5)
Intellectual Disability Severity*
Profound
Severe
Moderate
Mild/borderline
Not known
Epilepsy
Present
Absent
Not known
Females (N=71) (N=356)
Autistic traits†
≥2 traits 15 (21.1) 75 (21.1)
≤1 trait 56 (78.9) 274 (77.0)
Missing 0 0 7 (2.0)
Intellectual Disability Severity*
Profound
Severe
Moderate
Mild/borderline
Not known
Epilepsy
Present
Absent
Not known

Private Households
Males (N=38) (N=1122)
Autistic traits†
≥2 traits 3 7.9 160 14.3
≤1 trait 33 86.8 936 83.4
Missing 2 5.3 26 2.3
Females (N=36) (N=898)
Autistic traits†
≥2 traits 5 13.9 86 9.6
≤1 trait 30 83.3 795 88.5
Missing 1 2.8 17 1.2

* As measured using the Leicestershire ID Scale (Tyrer et al. 2008)

† Poor quality of social interaction, limited empathy, presence of elaborate routines and
presence of stereotypies (Bhaumik 2010; Holmes et al. 1982)

10
Table DS3. Leicestershire and England: Sociodemographic Characteristics and
Special Educational Needs (2011 Census).
Characteristic Leicestershire England
Usual resident population (%,N=1017697) (%,N=53,012,456)
Age – yr
0 to 15 19.0 18.9
16 to 44 39.7 39.4
45 to 64 25.5 25.4
65 and over 15.8 16.3
Sex
Male 49.4 49.2
Ethnic group
White 78.4 85.4
South Asian 16.1 7.8
Black/African/Caribbean/Black 2.4 3.5
British
Other/mixed 3.1 3.3
Geography
Urban (built-up area >10,000 77.9 82.4
inhabitants)
Usual resident population aged 16 (%,N=824,351) (%,N=42,989,620)
years and over
Highest Educational Qualification
None 24 22.5
GCSE or equivalent *, 27.9 28.5
Post-school† 42.2 43.4
Other ‡ 6 5.7

School Pupils § (%,N=156,446) (%,N=8,123,865)

With official statement of specia need 2.7 2.8
In special school 1.0 1.1

*, School-based, usually taken at age 16

† Includes apprenticeship
‡ includes non-UK and some other vocational qualifications
§ source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/special-educational-needs-in-
england-january-2011

11
Table DS4: Sample characteristics.a
Characteristic Moderate to profound intellectual No or mild/borderline intellectual disability
disability
IDCR (n=217) IDCR (n=47) APMS (n=7274)
Gender, n (%)
Male 121 (55.8) 19 (40.4) 3130 (43.0)
Female 96 (44.2) 28 (59.6) 4144 (57.0)
Age group
18–29 38 (17.5) 13 (27.7) 921 (12.7)
30–44 62 (28.6) 18 (38.3) 1966 (27.0)
45–64 97 (44.7) 10 (21.3) 2409 (33.1)
65+ 20 (9.2) 6 (12.8) 1978 (27.2)
Ethnic group, n (%)
White 176 (81.1) 42 (89.4) 6700 (92.1)
South Asian 29 (13.4) 2 (4.3) 185 (2.5)
Black 8 (3.7) 0 191 (2.6)
Other/missing 4 (1.8) 3 (6.4) 198 (2.7)
Residence
Private household 68 (31.3) 9 (19.2) -
Communal establishment 149 (68.7) 38 (80.9) -
Intellectual ability, n (%)b
Profound intellectual disability 125 (57.6) - -
Severe intellectual disability 58 (26.7) - -
Moderate intellectual disability 34 (15.7) - -
Mild/borderline intellectual disability - 47 (100) -
IQ 70–85 - - 1006 (13.8)
IQ 86–100 - - 1829 (25.1)
IQ 101+ - - 3916 (53.8)
IQ not assessed - - 523 (7.2)
Activities of daily living (ADL)
ADL difficulties, median (IQR)c 7 (7, 7) 5 (4, 7) 0 (0, 1)
ADL with a lot of difficulty, median (IQR) 6 (4, 7) 2 (0, 3) 0 (0, 0)

12
 Participants with missing data on ADLs, n (%) 13 (6.0) 8 (17.0) 18 (0.2)
Mobility, n (%)
No difficulty 19 (8.8) 20 (42.6) 6253 (86.0)
Some difficulty 66 (30.4) 18 (38.3) 657 (9.0)
A lot of difficulty 132 (60.8) 9 (19.1) 364 (5.0)
Work, n (%)
Never in paid work 185 (85.3) 30 (63.8) 230 (3.2)
Ever in paid work 10 (4.6) 11 (23.4) 6975 (95.9)
Missing 22 (10.1) 6 (12.8) 69 (0.9)
a. This is a more detailed version of Table 1 in the main text.
b. Classified using the Vineland II caregiver rating form26 for the Intellectual Disability Case Register (IDCR) sample, and the National Adult
Reading Test for Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS) sample. 12 adults from the IDCR study are excluded because they could not be
classified.
c. Difficulty with seven ADL including personal care, getting out and about and using transport, medical care, household activities, practical
activities, paperwork and managing money.

13
Epidemiology of autism in adults across age groups and ability
levels
Traolach S. Brugha, Nicola Spiers, John Bankart, Sally-Ann Cooper, Sally McManus, Fiona J. Scott, Jane
Smith and Freya Tyrer
BJP 2016, 209:498-503.
Access the most recent version at DOI: 10.1192/bjp.bp.115.174649

Supplementary Supplementary material can be found at:

Material http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/suppl/2016/06/29/bjp.bp.115.174649.DC1.html

References This article cites 34 articles, 2 of which you can access for free at:
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/209/6/498#BIBL
Reprints/ To obtain reprints or permission to reproduce material from this paper, please
permissions write to permissions@rcpsych.ac.uk

You can respond /letters/submit/bjprcpsych;209/6/498

to this article at
Downloaded http://bjp.rcpsych.org/ on December 1, 2016
from Published by The Royal College of Psychiatrists

To subscribe to The British Journal of Psychiatry go to:

http://bjp.rcpsych.org/site/subscriptions/