Dataset Information

A systematic review of pragmatic language interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder.

ABSTRACT: There is a need for evidence based interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to limit the life-long, psychosocial impact of pragmatic language impairments. This systematic review identified 22 studies reporting on 20 pragmatic language interventions for children with ASD aged 0-18 years. The characteristics of each study, components of the interventions, and the methodological quality of each study were reviewed. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness of 15 interventions. Results revealed some promising approaches, indicating that active inclusion of the child and parent in the intervention was a significant mediator of intervention effect. Participant age, therapy setting or modality were not significant mediators between the interventions and measures of pragmatic language. The long-term effects of these interventions and the generalisation of learning to new contexts is largely unknown. Implications for clinical practice and directions for future research are discussed.

SUBMITTER: Parsons L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5398499 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of pragmatic language interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder.

Parsons Lauren L Cordier Reinie R Munro Natalie N Joosten Annette A Speyer Renée R

PloS one 20170420 4

There is a need for evidence based interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to limit the life-long, psychosocial impact of pragmatic language impairments. This systematic review identified 22 studies reporting on 20 pragmatic language interventions for children with ASD aged 0-18 years. The characteristics of each study, components of the interventions, and the methodological quality of each study were reviewed. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effectiveness of 15 ...[more]

PMID: 28426832

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceAutism spectrum disorder (ASD) is a neurological condition characterized by impairments in social interaction, communication, and behavior. Occupational therapy practitioners use creative arts interventions for children with ASD, but relevant evidence for these interventions is lacking.ObjectiveTo provide occupational therapists evidence of the benefit of creative arts interventions for children with ASD by evaluating treatment efficacy and connecting the evidence with the Occupational Therapy Practice Framework: Domain and Process (4th ed.; OTPF-4).Data sourcesWe searched peer-reviewed articles in six databases: CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, Ovid, PsycInfo, and Scopus. Eighteen articles published between 2000 and 2020 met Level 1b or 2b evidence criteria and were retrieved for full review; 15 were included in this scoping review.Study selection and data collectionWe used Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to extract data. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) Level 1b or 2b study; (2) quantitative data; (3) published in English; (4) population of children (ages <18 yr); (5) primary diagnosis of ASD; and (6) creative arts intervention in the forms of drawing, painting, or coloring; music; or theater.FindingsCreative arts interventions benefited children with ASD in two OTPF-4 areas (process and social interaction) pertaining to the Performance Skills domain and one OTPF-4 area (body functions) pertaining to the Client Factors domain. We found similar effects for group and individual intervention sessions, and significant improvements required multiple sessions.Conclusions and relevanceOur findings provide evidence for the efficacy of creative arts interventions to enhance occupation-based outcomes for children with ASD. What This Article Adds: Our findings support occupational therapy practitioners' use of creative arts interventions to improve OTPF-4-based client factors and process and social interaction skills for children with ASD.

Project description:BackgroundMuch controversy exists regarding the clinical efficacy of behavioural and developmental interventions for improving the core symptoms of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). We conducted a systematic review to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of behavioural and developmental interventions for ASD.Methods and findingsComprehensive searches were conducted in 22 electronic databases through May 2007. Further information was obtained through hand searching journals, searching reference lists, databases of theses and dissertations, and contacting experts in the field. Experimental and observational analytic studies were included if they were written in English and reported the efficacy of any behavioural or developmental intervention for individuals with ASD. Two independent reviewers made the final study selection, extracted data, and reached consensus on study quality. Results were summarized descriptively and, where possible, meta-analyses of the study results were conducted. One-hundred-and-one studies at predominantly high risk of bias that reported inconsistent results across various interventions were included in the review. Meta-analyses of three controlled clinical trials showed that Lovaas treatment was superior to special education on measures of adaptive behaviour, communication and interaction, comprehensive language, daily living skills, expressive language, overall intellectual functioning and socialization. High-intensity Lovaas was superior to low-intensity Lovaas on measures of intellectual functioning in two retrospective cohort studies. Pooling the results of two randomized controlled trials favoured developmental approaches based on initiative interaction compared to contingency interaction in the amount of time spent in stereotyped behaviours and distal social behaviour, but the effect sizes were not clinically significant. No statistically significant differences were found for: Lovaas versus special education for non-verbal intellectual functioning; Lovaas versus Developmental Individual-difference relationship-based intervention for communication skills; computer assisted instruction versus no treatment for facial expression recognition; and TEACCH versus standard care for imitation skills and eye-hand integration.ConclusionsWhile this review suggests that Lovaas may improve some core symptoms of ASD compared to special education, these findings are based on pooling of a few, methodologically weak studies with few participants and relatively short-term follow-up. As no definitive behavioural or developmental intervention improves all symptoms for all individuals with ASD, it is recommended that clinical management be guided by individual needs and availability of resources.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There has an increasing number of published trials on psychosocial intervention programmes for pre-school children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). To achieve better quality of unbiased evidence for the effectiveness of ASD interventions, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive review that covers studies with adequate quality standards, such as randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and different types of intervention In this study, we categorize interventions for ASD as behavioural, social-communication focused, and multimodal developmental based on Howlin's classification of early interventions for children with ASD. The aim of this study was to compare these three models and investigate the strengths and weaknesses of each type of intervention and to identify the approaches that contribute to a successful outcome for children with autism. METHODS:We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. We included RCTs targeting children with ASD 6 years old or younger. A random effects model was used to present the effect estimate for the outcomes. This study also performed combined meta-analyses of all the three models to investigate the overall effectiveness of the intervention programmes. RESULTS:32 randomized controlled studies were found to be eligible for inclusion. The synthesized data included 594 children from 14 RCTs. There was no statistically significant difference in the effects on autism general symptoms between the social-communication-focused model and the multimodal developmental model (p = 0.83). The results suggest that there is evidence of an effect on 'reciprocity of social interaction towards others' (standard mean difference [95% confidential interval] = 0.53[0.29,0.78], p<0.01) and 'parental synchrony' (SMD = 0.99[0.70,1.29], p<0.01). CONCLUSION:The small number of studies included in the present study limited the ability to make inferences when comparing the three models and investigating the strengths and weaknesses of each type of intervention with respect to important outcomes. Since the outcome of 'reciprocity of social interaction towards others' could be a dependent variable that might be context-bound to interactions with the child's parent, we cannot conclude the interventions for pre-school children with ASD have significant effects on a generalized skill to engage in reciprocal interactions with others. However, the outcomes of 'reciprocity of social interaction towards others' and 'parental synchrony' may be promising targets for interventions involving pre-school children with ASD. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Prospero CRD42011001349.

Project description:The aims of this study are to (1) conduct a systematic review of the intervention literature in preschool children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), including types of interventions that are tested and the classification of outcome measures used and (2) to undertake a meta-analysis of the studies, allowing for the first time the comparison of different approaches to intervention using comparative outcomes. There are a number of alternative modalities of intervention for preschool children with ASD in use with different theoretical background and orientation, each of which tend to use different trial designs and outcome measures. There is at this time an urgent need for comprehensive systematic review and meta-analyses of intervention studies for preschool children with ASD, covering studies of adequate quality across different intervention types and measurement methods, with a view to identifying the best current evidence for preschool interventions in the disorder.The authors will perform a systematic review of randomised controlled trials for preschool children with ASD aged 0-6 years, along with a meta-analysis of qualifying studies across intervention modality. The authors will classify the interventions for preschool children with ASD under three models: behaviour, multimodal developmental and communication focused. First, the authors will perform a systematic review. Then, the authors will conduct a meta-analysis by comparing the three models with various outcomes using an inverse variance method in a random effect model. The authors will synthesise each outcome of the studies for the three models using standardised mean differences.This study will identify each intervention's strengths and weaknesses. This study may also suggest what kinds of elements future intervention programmes for children with ASD should have. The authors strongly believe those findings will be able to translated into the clinical practices and patients and their family benefits. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42011001349.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of pragmatic language interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder.

Publications

A systematic review of pragmatic language interventions for children with autism spectrum disorder.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets