ArticlePLOS digital health2025
Families' and clinicians' experiences with telehealth assessments for autism: A mixed-methods systematic review.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recently, the utilization of telehealth for the evaluation of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in children has increased considerably. Although past studies have explored the feasibility and validity of telehealth assessment procedures for ASD, the acceptability and perspectives of families and clinicians regarding telehealth for autism evaluations have not yet been systematically examined. This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to synthesize the available evidence to understand the experiences of families and clinicians with telehealth. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology guidelines for conducting mixed-method systematic reviews using the convergent integrated approach. We searched relevant databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ASSIA) and other sources (e.g., grey literature) to identify eligible articles (PROSPERO: CRD42022332500). Data from eligible studies were pooled and subjected to thematic synthesis. In total, 27 studies were included in this review, involving 1013 caregivers and 521 clinicians who shared their perceptions and experiences with telehealth. Overall, participants were highly satisfied with telehealth procedures and noted several advantages, including increased convenience, flexibility, and efficiency (e.g., reduced costs and travel time), improved service provision and access to timely care, and enhanced clinical effectiveness. However, certain disadvantages, such as technical difficulties, difficulties observing certain behaviors, perceived lack of accuracy, concerns about the family's role and safeguarding issues, among others, were also reported. Telehealth was believed to improve equity for some families (i.e., geographically remote families) while potentially disadvantaging others (i.e., socioeconomically disadvantaged families and those with limited English proficiency). Children who were older, less active, less medically and psychosocially complex and those with a clearer presentation of ASD were considered more suitable for a telehealth evaluation for ASD. In conclusion, this review provides new insights into the experiences of families and clinicians with telehealth, highlighting its potential uses for ASD evaluations and identifying areas for improvement and future research.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.