Quality of life of families‘ growing autistic

Aim: To evaluate quality of life of autistic children and their families and compare it with quality of life of healthy children and their families. Objects: 1. To evaluate quality of life of personal spheres of autistic and healthy children. 2. To evaluate quality of life of interpersonal spheres of autistic and healthy children. 3. To determine quality of life of external sphere of autistic and healthy children. Methods: The paper used the following methods: scientific publications, chosen theme analysis and systematization of qualitative and quantitative research methods: interviews (n = 3) and a questionnaire of families, mathematical - statistical analysis of data. The quantitative study was made of two groups: target - families with children with autistic disorder (n = 72) and control - whole families with children (n = 142). Children with the disorder and healthy children in families interviewed in the same educational institutions. Results: Autistic disorder is a turning point in family life - changing not only the child but also parents. Each case - different symptoms, course, family reactions, adaptation to the disorder. Most fathers and mothers mentioned in response to the child's disorder: confusion, confusion (64% and 71%), Inability to adapt to the diagnosis (64%. and 76%), belief that child will grow (60% and 63%), special interest in the disorder (55% and 89%). Most of the surveyed autism children attend school, additional trained speech therapist, physical therapist, attend special classes, massage (21%). (p <0,001). Healthy children attend significantly more sports (30%). (p <0,001), art classes (53%). (p <0,001). Child with a disorder have not three or more friends, which can not be said of healthy children (56%) (p <0,001). Lithuania autistic children and their families, the environment is unfavorable, they receive several times less assistance from the public than in healthy children in the family. These families in particular need of child care assistance (32%) (p <0,001), psychological (15%), financial support (18%). Public awareness, self-help groups (15 proc.). (p