ReviewClinical child and family psychology review2026
The Efficacy of Mentalization-Based Interventions Among Autistic Individuals and Their Families: A Systematic Review.
Review in Clinical child and family psychology review, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Autistic individuals often experience differences in social-cognitive processing, including mentalization, the capacity to understand one's own and others' mental states, which may influence social and emotional functioning. This systematic review synthesizes the current evidence base on interventions targeting mentalization and Theory of Mind (ToM), conceptualized here as related but distinct constructs, with ToM reflecting more specific cognitive perspective-taking skills within the broader mentalization framework. A comprehensive search across multiple databases, without restrictions on language or year of publication, identified 19 eligible studies involving autistic individuals and their caregivers. Study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), providing an indication of methodological rigor across diverse designs, though not a formal assessment of risk of bias. Across studies, interventions were generally associated with improvements in reflective functioning and performance on structured ToM tasks (e.g., false-belief understanding). However, these gains were predominantly observed in proximal, task-based measures, with limited and inconsistent evidence for generalization to real-world social functioning. This pattern raises important questions regarding the ecological validity of commonly used ToM assessments and whether observed improvements reflect meaningful changes in everyday social interaction or task-specific learning. Substantial heterogeneity in study design, intervention characteristics, outcome measures, and participant profiles further limits comparability and precludes firm conclusions regarding effectiveness. Overall, while mentalization- and ToM-based interventions show promise, the current evidence base remains methodologically and conceptually constrained. Future research should prioritize ecologically valid outcome measures, clearer specification of intervention mechanisms, and more rigorous study designs, including long-term follow-up, to better determine whether these interventions support meaningful, real-world social and relational outcomes for autistic individuals and their families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42467399What 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.