Effectiveness of Therapies Treating Sensory Processing Disorders in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder

Introduction

The prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) has grown increasingly within recent years. In the year 2000 there were 6.7 per 1000 children diagnosed with ASD and in the year 2018 there were 23 children per 1000 children diagnosed. It is approximately 4 times more common in males than females.¹ ASD is a neurological disorder that is mainly diagnosed in the early stage of life. No single cause or biomarker has been identified and there are broad range symptoms within the spectrum. Although the symptoms are varied, ASD is categorized by pervasive difficulties with communication and social interaction with others, restrictive interests, restrictive or repetitive behaviors, and symptoms that affect school work and home settings.²

It has been established that one of the symptoms that affect many of those with ASD is sensory processing difficulty. In the DSM V, abnormal reactions to sensory stimuli is listed as one of the diagnostic criterion of ASD.³ In one study the abnormal response to sensory stimuli in the first two years of life separated children who were diagnosed with ASD from those who suffered from a learning disability or who had a lower IQ.⁴ Sensory symptoms are predictive of social communication deficits and repetitive behaviors in childhood.⁵ An estimated 80% of children diagnosed with autism display sensory processing difficulties.⁶ These sensory processing difficulties often lead to negative behaviors and decreased functioning within the child’s environment. Hyperreactivity to stimuli such as loud sounds, touch, or overwhelming environment may lead to distress, avoidance, or hypervigilance. Children who respond to stimuli in a hyporeactive manner may appear unaware or non-responsive to the stimuli or they may actively seek new intense stimuli to increase their arousal.³ Children with sensory processing difficulties may actively seek or avoid ordinary sensations such as auditory, tactile, or vestibular input.³

Currently there is no known treatment for Autism and the available treatment is directed towards decreasing symptoms and increasing functioning within daily activities.¹ Although sensory interventions are common for ASD children a broad range of treatments are implemented with conflicting evidence of efficacy.⁷ Sensory-based intervention is one of the most common therapies requested from parents for children with ASD.³ Some of the more mainstream treatments include Sensory Integration training (SIT) and Sensory Based Interventions, (SBI). Less common treatments include music therapy, massage therapy, and auditory integration training (AIT). Research within this field has been tumultuous. Since there is mostly no standard or set protocol even with one given type of treatment any research has been hard to compare or even reproduce. Additionally, there is no broadly agreed-upon standard regarding the assessment of a child’s sensory processing difficulties. This creates difficulties regarding scoring a sensory profile before and after a researched treatment. Some of the research has been performed by professionals other than those in the medical field and terminology can be confusing when comparing and analyzing research.

Methods

Results

A total of 7 clinical studies of Sensory integration therapy were identified. Studies included 3 randomized control studies, 3 cohort studies, and one pilot study. Studies that used the term ASI or Aryes sensory integration were included together with studies of SIT or sensory integration therapy. A total of 6 studies identified positive outcomes in at least one area. One study found that there were no significant differences in outcomes between children treated with sensory integration therapy and those treated with usual care. All studies showed improvement in motor skills however, there were varied results regarding other measured goals which showed varied outcomes.

Six systemic reviews of Sensory integration therapy for children diagnosed with ASD were identified. Of the six, five studies concluded that positive results were seen and one study stating that there was not enough evidence to suggest that STI provides significant positive outcomes. However, one study reported positive results were limited to motor difficulties and that other areas including sensory difficulties and ASD-like behaviors did not have significant outcomes. Two other studies reported positive outcomes but both stated more research was needed in this area to confirm the results and provide further details like rate, duration and frequency.

There were 7 other studies of other therapies besides SIT. Three papers reviewed Sensory Based Intervention (SBI). All studies included isolated sensory-specific strategies that were grouped under SBI. Examples include asking the child to wear a weighted vest, brushing the skin with a specialized sensory brush, use of a therapy ball. One study showed some positive outcomes with SBI but concluded that the improvement was significant enough since the children only moved one level within the ASD criteria and had still met the cut-off for an ASD diagnosis. Another study stated that their review provided little evidence of positive outcomes. The last study split SBI into two groups, Single sensory approach and multi sensory approach. Single sensory was defined as use of a single technique i.e weighted vest and multi sensory approach defined as use of multiple treatments in place. The review found that a single sensory approach provided little evidence of positive outcomes like the previous study. However, the multi-sensory SBI was found to produce a significant decrease in ASD symptoms. Two systematic studies reviewed Auditory Integration Therapy (AIT) to treat sensory processing disorder (SPD) in children with ASD; one review found significant improvement across broad areas while the other review found no evidence of effectiveness. One study reviewed massage therapy to treat SPD in ASD and found there to be significant positive outcomes, The last study reviewed music therapy and found no significant difference between ASD children treated with music therapy and those not treated.

Discussion

Treating SPD in children with autism is not straightforward. There are many therapies and all of them have different degrees of conflicting evidence if they produced positive outcomes. Many of the first studies done had limited number of participants and were run as cohort studies and not as randomized clinical trials. In 2012 studies were still lumping SBI together with SIT as seen in Russel L (2012) where the authors stated “Implementation of SIT typically involves some combination of the child wearing a weighted vest, being brushed or rubbed with various instruments, riding a scooter board, swinging, sitting on a bouncy ball, being squeezed between exercise pads or pillows, and other similar activities.”¹⁵ It was not until 2015 that SIT became discrete therapies from SBI as seen in Case-Smith (2015) and Watling (2015)¹⁷ Of the 4 articles that reviewed SIT only one stated that were was no evidence to suggest positive outcomes, the Russel L15. As mentioned earlier, one study stated there was a positive outcome in SBI with the multi sensory approach, but all agreed that single sensory approach did not about significant positive outcomes. The remaining 3 studies that focused solely on SIT showed positive outcomes and one can say there is no conflicting evidence among review papers regarding this.

Of the 7 clinical trials reviewed the first 4 did not provide high confidence levels of evidence within their outcomes. Two had less than 10 participants, another was a pilot study and another only measured outcomes when it came to motor deficits within children, not ASD mannerisms, behaviors or the child’s sensory processing difficulty.

Adding to the confluence of confusion is that within SIT there have been no set of fidelity measures that set a standard of what protocols to use during treatment.¹⁴ This leads to lack of reproducibility and the inability to compare one study to another.

Another factor that creates the incompatibility between studies is the broad range in the type of assessment used. One review article counted 16 different types of outcome measures used in the studies.¹⁷

Other factors to consider within given studies include maturation effects, the experience of therapists providing treatment, other medications or therapies participants are receiving, duration, rate, and frequency of treatment, and the caregiving effect.

Looking closely at the review papers of SIT one sees that the authors mostly excluded the 4 papers I excluded above. If one excludes the above papers and only includes randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared SIT to usual care one finds that there are only 2 RCTs that were reviewed by the various papers, Pfeiffer (2011)⁹ which are included in the table above and Schaff (2013)²³ which did not come up in the PubMed search. These studies however did not include the foreign studies included in this paper’s search.^{12, 13}

To clarify the matter, in 2022 researchers set out to conduct a clinical study that removed all the confounding factors mentioned above. Randell (2022)¹⁴ conducted an RCT with 138 participants, the biggest sample size yet. Additionally, the researchers set a protocol of treatment, conducted the treatment with competent therapists, and assessed patients using a recent standardized sensory disorder assessment together with GAS, an individualized goal assessment. The results of that study showed no significant difference between treatment groups. However, it should be noted that the duration of treatment was only difference between this study and other studies, - twice a week over 10 weeks then twice a month for 3 months.

Future studies should maintain the high standard of randomized clinical trials together with the controls that were mentioned above. Research should vary the protocol used - SIT together with the duration rate and frequency to see if there is any evidence of positive outcomes.

Competing Interests

The Author of this paper has no competing interests, and this paper did not require outside funding.