Celal Perihan, Mack D. Burke, Lisa Bowman-Perrott, Joel O. Bocanegra
{"title":"Assessment and treatment of anxiety in children and adolescents with ASD: a systematic review","authors":"Celal Perihan, Mack D. Burke, Lisa Bowman-Perrott, Joel O. Bocanegra","doi":"10.1108/aia-03-2021-0016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of current studies that assess and treat anxiety symptoms in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). More specifically the study aimed to answer the following questions: What are the qualities of the current studies using cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) to treat anxiety symptoms in children with ASD? Did studies make necessary modifications and adaptations to CBTs according to the evidence-based strategies and implement these versions of CBTs with precise fidelity? Were the selected measurements appropriate for assessing the anxiety symptoms in children with ASD?\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nA systematic review protocol was developed from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Moher et al., 2009). A rubric was adapted based on the CEC (Council for Exceptional Children; Cook, 2014) group comparison studies standards and the Evaluative Method for Determining EBP in Autism (Reichow et al., 2007). The 3-point Likert Scale (Chard et al., 2009) was adapted to score each study based on the rubric.\n\n\nFindings\nCBT is a first-line treatment with significant mixed results. Current studies use adapted versions of existing CBTs for children with ASD without reporting empirical evidence to these adaptations and changes. Reporting of the implementation fidelity is still an issue in the treatment of anxiety. Anxiety measurements that were designed for typically developing children failure to detect unusual anxiety symptoms in children with ASD.\n\n\nResearch limitations/implications\nThe first limitation of this study was including a variety of studies across CBT programs and types of anxiety symptoms. Types of anxiety and CBT treatments may require separate analyses with specific indicators. Due to the limited studies, reviews could not be analyzed across types of CBT programs. The second limitation was the types of studies. Most of the studies were pilot studies. Pilot studies might use various instruments and CBTs components for making selections to produce the best effects and results. The final limitation was the lack of examination of the data analysis process.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nThese findings are important because due to the variety of changes or adaptation to CBTs, inappropriate implementations and failure to detect unusual anxiety symptoms of children with ASD may cause significant differences in treatment responses and outcomes. The study demonstrated that the majority of the studies used adapted versions of existing CBTs without reporting empirical evidence for these adaptations and changes. The findings have shown that reporting of the implementation fidelity is still an issue. Moreover, the majority of studies had used anxiety measurements that were designed for typically developing children, not for children with ASD.\n","PeriodicalId":43640,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Autism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Autism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/aia-03-2021-0016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, DEVELOPMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this study was to investigate the quality of current studies that assess and treat anxiety symptoms in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). More specifically the study aimed to answer the following questions: What are the qualities of the current studies using cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) to treat anxiety symptoms in children with ASD? Did studies make necessary modifications and adaptations to CBTs according to the evidence-based strategies and implement these versions of CBTs with precise fidelity? Were the selected measurements appropriate for assessing the anxiety symptoms in children with ASD?
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic review protocol was developed from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Moher et al., 2009). A rubric was adapted based on the CEC (Council for Exceptional Children; Cook, 2014) group comparison studies standards and the Evaluative Method for Determining EBP in Autism (Reichow et al., 2007). The 3-point Likert Scale (Chard et al., 2009) was adapted to score each study based on the rubric.
Findings
CBT is a first-line treatment with significant mixed results. Current studies use adapted versions of existing CBTs for children with ASD without reporting empirical evidence to these adaptations and changes. Reporting of the implementation fidelity is still an issue in the treatment of anxiety. Anxiety measurements that were designed for typically developing children failure to detect unusual anxiety symptoms in children with ASD.
Research limitations/implications
The first limitation of this study was including a variety of studies across CBT programs and types of anxiety symptoms. Types of anxiety and CBT treatments may require separate analyses with specific indicators. Due to the limited studies, reviews could not be analyzed across types of CBT programs. The second limitation was the types of studies. Most of the studies were pilot studies. Pilot studies might use various instruments and CBTs components for making selections to produce the best effects and results. The final limitation was the lack of examination of the data analysis process.
Originality/value
These findings are important because due to the variety of changes or adaptation to CBTs, inappropriate implementations and failure to detect unusual anxiety symptoms of children with ASD may cause significant differences in treatment responses and outcomes. The study demonstrated that the majority of the studies used adapted versions of existing CBTs without reporting empirical evidence for these adaptations and changes. The findings have shown that reporting of the implementation fidelity is still an issue. Moreover, the majority of studies had used anxiety measurements that were designed for typically developing children, not for children with ASD.
目的本研究的目的是调查目前评估和治疗自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)儿童焦虑症状的研究的质量。更具体地说,这项研究旨在回答以下问题:目前使用认知行为疗法(CBT)治疗ASD儿童焦虑症状的研究有哪些质量?研究是否根据循证策略对CBT进行了必要的修改和调整,并以精确的保真度实施了这些版本的CBT?所选择的测量是否适合评估ASD儿童的焦虑症状?设计/方法/方法根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目制定了系统评价方案(Moher等人,2009)。根据CEC(特殊儿童委员会;Cook,2014)小组比较研究标准和确定自闭症EBP的评估方法(Reichow et al.,2007),对该准则进行了调整。三分Likert量表(Chard等人,2009)适用于根据评分标准对每项研究进行评分。FindingsCBT是一线治疗,结果喜忧参半。目前的研究使用现有ASD儿童CBT的改编版本,但没有报告这些改编和变化的经验证据。报告实施保真度仍然是治疗焦虑症的一个问题。为典型发展中的儿童设计的焦虑测量未能检测到ASD儿童的异常焦虑症状。研究局限性/含义本研究的第一个局限性是包括CBT项目和焦虑症状类型的各种研究。焦虑和CBT治疗的类型可能需要使用特定指标进行单独分析。由于研究有限,无法对不同类型的CBT项目进行审查分析。第二个限制是研究的类型。大多数研究都是试点研究。试点研究可能会使用各种仪器和CBT组件进行选择,以产生最佳效果和结果。最后的限制是缺乏对数据分析过程的审查。原创性/价值这些发现很重要,因为由于对CBT的各种变化或适应,不适当的实施和未能检测到ASD儿童的异常焦虑症状可能会导致治疗反应和结果的显著差异。该研究表明,大多数研究使用了现有CBT的改编版本,而没有报告这些改编和变化的经验证据。调查结果表明,报告实施保真度仍然是一个问题。此外,大多数研究都使用了针对典型发育中儿童的焦虑测量,而不是针对自闭症谱系障碍儿童。
期刊介绍:
Advances in Autism is unique in its focus on the health and care aspects and outcomes for people with autism. The journal''s content is international in focus and peer-reviewed. It includes the following: research-based articles evidence-based clinical and support articles articles on policy and advances in services where these can be internationally applied. Key areas of research covered include: clinical developments people''s experience through qualitative research policy debates and outcomes inclusion and quality of life developmental issues population and epidemiological studies services developments evidence-based reviews of key practice issues.