Effectivity of Play-Based Interventions in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Their Parents: A Systematic Review

An Exploratory Study on the Association between Atypical Behavioral Responses to Tickling and Autistic Traits in Japanese Children

Although play is an essential occupation for children, parents of children with autistic traits tend to struggle with play-based interpersonal interaction with them. Tickling play appears to be one of the most interpersonal forms of play because nobody can tickle themselves. However, atypical tactile processing (e.g. tactile sensitivity) has been reported in children with autistic traits, who may exhibit atypical behavioral responses during tickling play. Our aim was to investigate the association between autistic traits and behavioral responses during parent-child tickling play in Japanese young children. We recorded tickling interaction between children and their parents using behavior coding with six behavioral items. Autistic traits and tactile sensitivity were measured using parent-reported questionnaires. Results showed two behavioral responses were significantly associated with autistic traits in all children: "approach with positive emotional response" and "no response" were negatively and positively correlated with autistic traits, respectively. This exploratory study suggests that behavioral responses during tickling play may be associated with autistic traits.

Scoping Review on Play-Based Interventions in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Play as a therapeutic strategy can help to improve daily functioning in children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Play-based intervention can thus be an optimal option for treatment of this population. Our aim was to describe play-based interventions used in children and adolescents with ASD. We conducted a scoping review. A peer-reviewed literature search was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science and PsycINFO databases. We included experimental studies which analyzed play-based interventions in children and adolescents with ASD, which were published in English/Spanish with full text available. We used three tables elaborated a priori to perform data extraction by two authors. Fifteen studies were included, mostly conducted in Australia and published during the past 10 years. Play-based intervention was categorized into three groups: new technologies, symbolic play or official techniques. Interventions lasted approximately 11 weeks, contained one weekly session of 30–60 min and were delivered by parents and teachers. Play-based interventions using new technologies were the most used. Intervention duration and number of sessions varied between articles. Further studies are needed to create play-based intervention protocols which can be implemented in clinical practice with children and adolescents with ASD, thus promoting evidence-based interventions in this field.

Effectiveness of interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder in high-income vs. lower middle-income countries: An overview of systematic reviews and research papers from LMIC

Background

There is a multitude of systematic reviews of interventions for children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). However, most reviews seem to be based on research conducted in High-Income Countries (HIC). Thus, summary findings may not directly apply to Lower Middle-Income Countries (LMIC). Therefore, we conducted a Meta-Review analyzing systematic reviews on the effectiveness of interventions for target outcomes in children and adolescents with ASD to find out whether there are differences in effectiveness between HIC and LMIC and which interventions can be considered evidence-based in LMIC.

Methods

Electronic databases (PsycINFO, PubMed, Cochrane database of systematic reviews) were searched for reviews on interventions for ASD in children and adolescents from January 2011 through December 2021, which included studies not coming from HIC. Systematic reviews with qualitative and quantitative syntheses of findings were included. Two investigators independently assessed studies against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria and extracted relevant data including quality and evidence assessments. Evidence for different types of interventions in HIC vs. LMIC was planned to be compared, but none of the reviews assessed potential differences. Therefore, a narrative review of the studies from LMIC was conducted including an assessment of quality and evidence.

Results

Thirty-five reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Eleven considered findings from HIC and LMIC. Sixty-nine percent included studies with various research designs; 63% provided a qualitative synthesis of findings; 77% percent assessed the quality of studies; 43% systematically assessed the level of evidence across studies. No review compared evidence from HIC and LMIC. A review of the studies from LMIC found some promising results, but the evidence was not sufficient due to a small number of studies, sometimes poor quality, and small sample sizes.

Conclusion

Systematic reviews on interventions for children and adolescents with ASD did not look for potential differences in the effectiveness of interventions in HIC and LMIC. Overall, there is very little evidence from LMIC. None of the interventions can be considered evidence-based in LMIC. Hence, additional research and mutually agreed methodological standards are needed to provide a more secure basis for evidence-based treatments in LMIC trying to establish evidence-based practices.