Development of an Intervention Programme for Selective Eating in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Ayumi Miyajima, Kiyomi Tateyama, Shiori Fuji and 3 others
PMID 30186077WHAT IT FOUND
After a two-month parent programme with two sessions, two discussions, and optional interviews, 23 parents reported less difficulty and higher confidence.
Child food outcomes improved, but the paper also says these did not change. Without another group, these changes are not proof.
Key findings
01Parent-reported difficulty decreased from 54.65 to 37.22 on a 0 to 100 scale, and self-efficacy increased from 39.3 to 44.65 on a 12 to 60 scale.
02Parents reported using more of the 50 recommended eating strategies, rising from 18.39 to 25.39, and trying more, rising from 26.17 to 33.13.
03The results report children accepted more of the 47 listed foods, rising from 20.52 to 25.17, and rejected fewer, falling from 14.52 to 11.79, but the limitations section says there was no significant change in dietary imbalance or acceptable foods.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
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
The study had no control group, so improvement could be due to time, attention, or other supports. Only 23 of 49 parents who attended session 1 were analysed, and 14 could not attend session 2. The outcomes were mostly parent-reported, including difficulty, self-efficacy, strategies used, foods accepted, and perceived dietary imbalance. The programme included two sessions, two discussions, and optional interviews, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated. The paper reports significant changes in dietary imbalance and acceptable foods in the results but then states in the limitations that these did not change significantly. Selective eating was not operationally defined consistently, and some children were included on a questionnaire score rather than a diagnosis. The sample was Japanese-speaking parents from two centres in Osaka, so it may not apply to other settings.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that the programme caused the improvements. It had no comparison group, relied on parent reports, and only 23 of 49 parents who attended session 1 were analysed. It also bundled two sessions, two discussions, and optional interviews, so the effect of any one part cannot be separated. The paper also states in its limitations that dietary imbalance and accepted foods did not change significantly, despite reporting significant changes in the results.