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.