Autism spectrum disorder in sub-saharan africa: A comprehensive scoping review.
Lauren Franz, Nola Chambers, Megan von Isenburg and 1 others
PMID 28266791WHAT IT FOUND
ASD evidence in sub-Saharan Africa is thin and clinic-based.
Intervention studies were too small to show whether any treatment works, and many tools were not tested in local languages and settings.
Key findings
01Only 53 peer-reviewed articles about ASD in sub-Saharan Africa were identified, and 42 came from South Africa or Nigeria.
02No firm conclusions can be drawn about ASD phenotype, severity, comorbidities, or functional outcomes in sub-Saharan Africa because there were no large-scale or population-based studies and almost no standardized phenotyping.
03Intervention studies in sub-Saharan Africa were too few and too varied to meet evidence-based standards for any one practice, and none used standardized tools to diagnose ASD or monitor outcomes.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Only peer-reviewed articles were included, and no quality appraisal was used, so weak studies are counted alongside stronger ones. Most data came from South Africa or Nigeria and from clinic samples, so the review may not represent rural, community, or other country settings. Almost no studies used standardized diagnostic instruments, and no population-based prevalence studies were found, so ASD frequency and severity cannot be concluded. Intervention studies were very small and did not use standardized outcome tools, so they cannot show whether any treatment works. Adults, early intervention, education, transitional care, and technology were largely absent from the included literature.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read this review as evidence that ASD is rare in sub-Saharan Africa or that any ASD intervention works there. The review found no true prevalence studies and too few small, non-standardized intervention studies, so it maps research gaps rather than proving effects.