The effectiveness of early parental coaching in the autism spectrum disorder

Oral language interventions can improve language outcomes in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Young people who fail to develop language as expected face significant challenges in all aspects of life. Unfortunately, language disorders are common, either as a distinct condition (e.g., Developmental Language Disorder) or as a part of another neurodevelopmental condition (e.g., autism). Finding ways to attenuate language problems through intervention has the potential to yield great benefits not only for the individual but also for society as a whole.

Objectives

This meta-analytic review examined the effect of oral language interventions for children with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Search Methods

The last electronic search was conducted in April 2022.

Selection Criteria

Intervention studies had to target language skills for children from 2 to 18 years of age with Developmental Language Disorder, autism, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and Williams syndrome in randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs. Control groups had to include business-as-usual, waiting list, passive or active conditions. However, we excluded studies in which the active control group received a different type, delivery, or dosage of another language intervention. Eligible interventions implemented explicit and structured activities (i.e., explicit instruction of vocabulary, narrative structure or grammatical rules) and/or implicit and broad activities (i.e., shared book reading, general language stimulation). The intervention studies had to assess language skills in receptive and/or expressive modalities.

Data Collection and Analysis

The search provided 8195 records after deduplication. Records were screened by title and abstract, leading to full-text examinations of 448 records. We performed Correlated and Hierarchical Effects models and ran a retrospective power analysis via simulation. Publication bias was assessed via p-curve and precision-effect estimate.

Main Results

We examined 38 studies, with 46 group comparisons and 108 effects comparing pre-/post-tests and eight studies, with 12 group comparisons and 21 effects at follow-up. The results showed a mean effect size of d = 0.27 at the post-test and d = 0.18 at follow-up. However, there was evidence of publication bias and overestimation of the mean effects. Effects from the meta-analysis were significantly related to these elements: (1) receptive vocabulary and omnibus receptive measures showed smaller effect sizes relative to expressive vocabulary, grammar, expressive and receptive discourse, and omnibus expressive tests; and (2) the length of the intervention, where longer sessions conducted over a longer period of time were more beneficial than brief sessions and short-term interventions. Neither moderators concerning participants' characteristics (children's diagnosis, diagnostic status, age, sex, and non-verbal cognitive ability and severity of language impairment), nor those regarding of the treatment components and implementation of the language interventions (intervention content, setting, delivery agent, session structure of the intervention or total number of sessions) reached significance. The same occurred to indicators of study quality. The risk of bias assessment showed that reporting quality for the studies examined in the review was poor.

Authors’ Conclusions

In sum, the current evidence base is promising but inconclusive. Pre-registration and replication of more robust and adequately powered trials, which include a wider range of diagnostic conditions, together with more long-term follow-up comparisons, are needed to drive evidence-based practice and policy.

Psychosocial interventions for autistic children and adolescents delivered by non-specialists in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

Background

Most autistic individuals reside in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) and have limited access to medical providers and specialists. Support for delivery of psychosocial interventions by non-specialists is growing to address this mental health care gap. This scoping review involved a systematic analysis of studies of non-specialist delivered psychosocial interventions for children and adolescents diagnosed with autism and living in low- and middle-income countries.

Methods

The primary objective of this review was to identify psychosocial interventions for autistic children and adolescents in LMIC delivered by non-specialists (parent, teacher, peer, community, multi-level) and to summarize resulting effects on targeted outcomes. The search strategy was completed in four databases with predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The systematic search generated 3,601 articles. A total of 18 studies met inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data extraction was completed, and results summarized by; (1) participant sample; (2) intervention procedures; (3) implementation by non-specialists; (4) effect on evaluated outcomes; and (5) assessment of risk of bias. Studies examined a range of child and adolescent outcomes including assessment of communication skills, social skills, motor skills, functional and adaptive behaviors, emotional regulation, attention and engagement, sensory challenges, depression, anxiety, and quality of life. Several studies also evaluated intervention effects on family relationships, parent/caregiver stress and parent/caregiver mental health.

Results

Collectively, the 18 studies included a total of 952 ASC participants ranging in age from 2 to 16 years. Of the included studies, 8 studies were parent/caregiver-mediated, 1 study was peer-mediated, 2 studies were teacher-mediated, and 7 studies included multi-level non-specialist mediated components. Effects on evaluated outcomes are reported.

Conclusion

Non-specialist delivered interventions for autistic children and adolescents are effective for an array of outcomes and are particularly well suited for low- and middle-income countries. Implications for future research are discussed.

A Systematic Review of the Efficacy of Early Initiation of Speech Therapy and Its Positive Impact on Autism Spectrum Disorder

Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a condition that consists predominantly of an apparent early delay in communication and social skills. Among the multiple identified etiologies, genetics play a key role. The implementation of early interventional therapy for children with ASD is starting to show promising results. A few medical databases were used to collect multiple published types of research, which were thoroughly screened. Ultimately, a small amount was selected according to the defined eligibility criteria. The 12 articles that were reviewed involved a more significant number of boys than girls, and most clinical trials displayed the importance of starting early therapy. Astonishingly, the overwhelming effects of the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the continuation of speech therapy in certain areas. In addition, studies emphasize knowledge scarcity, insufficient resources in certain areas, and the demand to educate the community. Conversely, no difference in the level of severity was noted with the implementation of early therapy. Early therapy, chiefly speech therapy used to treat children with ASD, demonstrated favorable outcomes. Communities require awareness about the condition on a broader scale to educate caregivers on early alarming symptoms. All in all, additional exploration needs to be done.

A Review of Parent-Implemented Early Start Denver Model for Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of findings from selected research published between 2012 and 2022 in English-language peer-reviewed journals to evaluate the effectiveness of the parent-implemented Early Start Denver Model (P-ESDM). Thirteen studies used quantitative methods to examine the relationship between variables. We considered four categories of variables in the analysis: child characteristics, intervention intensity and duration, child outcome measures, and parent-related outcome measures and parental fidelity. The findings revealed positive child-parent-related outcomes. In addition, the quality of implementation, relating to parent fidelity, should be considered when evaluating the efficacy of the intervention. However, only half the studies revealed that the standard benchmark for acceptable fidelity was being achieved. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.