Abstract

Keywords: accessibility; autism; environments; neurodiversity; qualitative analysis; sensory processing.

Plain language summary

Why was this study done?: Autistic people often experience differences in sensory processing, such as finding bright lights and sounds overwhelming and painful. This has been linked to poorer quality of life and mental health. Not much is known about how public places could be changed to be less disabling for autistic adults.

What was the purpose of this study?: We aimed to find out which public places are disabling for autistic adults due to the sensory environment, and what about these places makes them especially challenging.

What did the researchers do?: We invited autistic adults to take part in online focus groups to tell us about their sensory experiences in public places. In total, 24 people took part across 7 focus groups. We analysed the data 3 ways: 1) we conducted content analysis, identifying categories of words or phrases that share meaning to find commonly disabling and enabling places; 2) we conducted reflexive thematic analysis, developing themes and sub-themes from trends in the data to understand how sensory environments can be experienced as disabling or enabling; and 3) we conducted case study analysis, to see if the themes and sub-themes were present in the commonly disabling environments.

What were the results of the study?: We found that supermarkets, eateries (i.e., restaurants, cafés, pubs), highstreets and city/town centres, public transport, healthcare settings (i.e., doctor's surgeries and hospitals), and retail shops and shopping centres, were most often mentioned as being disabling sensory environments. But, outdoor spaces, retail shops, museums, concert venues/clubs, cinemas/theatres, and stadiums were most often talked about as being less disabling sensory environments. We also identified principles that can make these environments either disabling or enabling. These included Sensoryscape or the `sensory landscape' (sensory burden, sustained and inescapable input, uncontrollable environment), Space (busy and crowded, confined the built environment is), Predictably (lack of information, inconsistent and unfamiliar, and uncertainty), Understanding (unsupportive people, misunderstanding and judgement), Adjustments (suitable adjustments, pace pressures, inflexible communication), and Recovery (space to escape, unable to recover and prepare). Last, we showed in more detail what these principles look like in the different disabling public places.

What do these findings add to what was already known?: Our findings add to our understanding about how autistic adults experience public places; particularly, that there are a range of external factors linked with sensory processing differences which can make public places disabling.

What are potential weaknesses in the study?: Our study could have recruited a more diverse range of autistic individuals, such as those with cooccurring intellectual disability. It is important to understand experiences from a diverse range of autistic people to ensure that outcomes from research can improve the lives of all autistic people.

How will these findings help autistic adults now or in the future?: Our findings provide insights into how public places could be improved so that they can become more enabling environments for autistic people. This is important for businesses, policy, and the design of spaces to make public places more accessible, improving mental wellbeing and quality of life for autistic individuals.