Extensive Examination of 19 Potential Autism Remedies Uncovers Lack of Substantial Proof and Insufficient Safety Information
In a groundbreaking study published in Nature Human Behaviour, researchers have highlighted the paucity of good quality scientific evidence for treatments aimed at individuals with autism. The study, titled "Does a four-day workweek boost wellbeing? Evidence from a six-month trial across 141 companies," was conducted over a period of six months, involving around 2,900 employees from six different countries.
The team, led by Professor Samuele Cortese, trawled through 248 meta-analyses comprising data from over 10,000 individuals. They found that many of these studies lacked any assessment of patient safety, and fewer than half of the interventions had any safety data to support them. The evidence for any positive effect from each of the 19 treatments was judged to be weak and/or poor quality.
The interventions were grouped into two categories: psychosocial therapies and complementary therapies. Psychosocial therapies include cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), social skills group therapy, and behavioral interventions based on the Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) model. The second category includes special diets, supplements, and transcranial magnetic or direct current stimulation.
The framework for treating autism that focuses heavily on suppressing "stimming" behaviors is controversial. Ari Ne'eman, an autistic self-advocate, stated that teaching people from a young age that their behaviors are wrong can be actively harmful. "Stimming" behaviors, such as hand-flapping, repeating sounds, hair twirling, and chewing objects, may be a way for autistic people to feel calm, express strong emotions, or experience comforting sensory input.
Autistic people and their advocates argue that the priority should be acceptance, awareness, and support, as well as upholding scientific integrity. The study team's interactive online platform allows exploration of each intervention, the claims made about them, and the quality of the evidence. The team compiled their findings into an online database for easy access by autistic people, parents, caregivers, and medical professionals.
The review of studies found no strong evidence to support the use of any of the 19 treatments for autism. This revelation comes at a time when more people than ever before are receiving an autism diagnosis. There is debate among experts about whether this is due to more autistic people being born, historic underdiagnosis, or overdiagnosis.
Fearmongering rhetoric about an autism "epidemic" has been promoted at high levels of the US government. However, the study's findings underscore the importance of basing decisions on solid scientific evidence rather than speculation or hasty conclusions drawn from low-quality studies. Co-senior author Professor Cortese stated that drawing conclusions from one low-quality study can be misleading.
In conclusion, the study published in Nature Human Behaviour provides a sobering look at the current state of autism treatments. It underscores the need for more rigorous scientific research to ensure that the treatments being offered are safe and effective. As the autism community continues to grow, it is crucial that we prioritize evidence-based interventions and support systems that foster acceptance, awareness, and well-being for individuals with autism.
