BackgroundThere 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.MethodsElectronic 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.ResultsThirty-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.ConclusionSystematic 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.

Like in many lower-middle-income countries (LMIC), progress in implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been slow in Bangladesh. This cross-sectional study examined professionals’ attitudes towards evidence-based practice (EBP) for children and adolescents with ASD and explored how providers’ demographic factors are related to attitudes to and adoption of EBPs in Bangladesh. The sample consisted of 150 mental health professionals and special teachers from the urban area of Dhaka. Attitudes were assessed by the Evidence-based Practice Attitude Scale-36. Findings indicated that professionals have favorable attitudes towards EBP. Their attitudes varied depending on service settings (public clinical, private clinical, and special school) and caseload per year. Professionals who work in private and special school settings claimed to be more willing to adopt an EBP when required and perceived a higher fit of EBPs and their work than those in public clinical settings. The number of different EBPs used also differed by service setting. Every type of intervention (except medication) was used by more professionals in special schools than in private and public clinical settings. Many professionals reported few barriers to the implementation of EBPs. These findings indicate conditions that are often conducive to the implementation of EBPs. However, these results do not reflect the situation in rural areas, in which poverty is more widespread and the number of specialized professionals is low.