Better Outcomes through Integrated Collaboration: AISee's Proposed New Study AIms to Close the GAP in Support for Neurodivergent Children
Long waits. Fragmented pathways. Families and practitioners doing their best with systems that weren't built to move fast. It's a familiar picture for anyone connected to neurodevelopmental and mental health support for children and young people - and it's the problem the heart of this new research proposal from AISee Collaborative Limited.
Building on a successful pilot, the proposal — Better Outcomes through Integrated Collaboration in Real-World Practice — sets out a five-year, two-stage study designed to test whether earlier, more joined-up assessment can genuinely change outcomes for children, families, and the services that support them.
Where it started
TThe new study builds directly on an earlier pilot, Informed Solutions for Better Outcomes, which ran from April 2021 to September 2022. That pilot used two established tools — the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA) — to give families and practitioners earlier, structured insight into a child's needs, well before formal diagnosis was reached.
The results were compelling: 11 partner organisations and 51 participants took part, generating 37 completed reports and 329 identified wellbeing concerns. Most notably, 75% of the actions families and professionals agreed on together were actually implemented — a strong signal that early, shared evidence translates into real change.
That pilot also sparked wider interest — enquiries have since come in from across health, social care, education, employability, and youth justice sectors, along with groups like Scotland's Autistic Informed Community and the Scottish ADHD Coalition, pointing to relevance across roughly 28 service areas.
What's Being Proposed Now
The new proposal scales that learning up into a 24-month "Test for Change" study (Stage One), followed by a 36-month scale-up and implementation phase (Stage Two) — 60 months in total.
The core question: can a structured, multi-informant approach — pulling together evidence from children and young people themselves, parents and carers, teachers, and clinical and non-clinical practitioners — improve identification, intervention planning, and measurable outcomes, while reducing duplication of effort across services?
Participants aged 5–21 would be assessed using a mix of tools, from for example the established SDQ and DAWBA 1995 through to newer non-clinical options like the Daily Living Skills Assessment 2002 and A-TAC 2004 chosen according to each person's starting point and perceived needs.
A Human-Led Role for AI
One of the more forward-looking elements is a dedicated AI-enabled evidence integration workstream. The idea isn't automation for its own sake — it's about giving already-stretched practitioners a hand with the unglamorous but essential work: pulling multi-source evidence together, flagging duplicated or conflicting information, tracking change over time, and summarising for families where appropriate.
Crucially, the proposal draws a firm line: AI would organise, compare, and summarise — but it will not diagnose, determine eligibility, or make autonomous clinical or safeguarding decisions. Every output stays traceable back to its source and reviewable by a human, multidisciplinary team. The workstream itself will be evaluated on accuracy, practitioner time saved, family trust, and cost-effectiveness, feeding directly into the case for scaling up in Stage Two.
Built on Ethics and Shared Ownership
The study is designed around research ethics and standards and the Declaration of Helsinki, with informed consent processes adapted to each participant's age and understanding. Children and young people are involved in decisions about their own participation as a default, not an afterthought. A proposed oversight group — chaired by Maria Galli — would bring together partner agencies, clinicians, non-clinical practitioners, and people with lived experience to guide governance and safeguarding throughout.
Why It Matters?
For commissioners and funders, the pitch is straightforward: better, earlier evidence means more targeted support, less escalation, less duplicated professional effort, and a stronger case for how services should be designed and funded going forward. For families and practitioners, it's about a pathway that actually listens to multiple sources of evidence — instead of waiting on a single, often lengthy, diagnostic route.
The proposal is now open for partner organisations, commissioners, and other stakeholders to get involved — with next steps including confirming partnerships, securing ethical approvals, finalising the study protocol, and lining up delivery funding.
In Summary
This post summarises a research proposal submitted by AISee Collaborative Limited. For the full proposal, governance details, and appendices, contact the project lead directly.
C.G. Thom Kirkwood here


