The Digital Divide in Technologies for Autism: Feasibility Considerations for Low- and Middle-Income Countries.
Aubrey J Kumm, Marisa Viljoen, Petrus J de Vries
PMID 34121159WHAT IT FOUND
Smartphone-based technologies were rated as having very high feasibility for autism care in low- and middle-income countries, while robotics and virtual reality were rated very low.
This expert consensus suggests mobile health is the most scalable option, but no clinical outcomes were tested.
Key findings
01Consensus ratings for overall feasibility in low- and middle-income countries were 'very high' for smartphone-based technologies and 'very low' for robotics.
02The study was a narrative feasibility evaluation performed by three reviewers with clinical and research expertise, not a clinical trial.
03The evidence base for mobile technologies in these settings remains extremely limited, with almost no apps evaluated specifically for this context.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they found
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 involved only three expert reviewers, all based in the same global region, which may have introduced bias and limited the range of perspectives. The ratings were categorical and made without operationalised criteria, as no global standards for feasibility ratings of health technologies currently exist. This was an expert consensus evaluation, not a clinical trial, so it provides no evidence on whether these technologies actually improve patient outcomes. The evidence base for mobile technologies in low- and middle-income countries is described as extremely limited, with almost no apps evaluated specifically for these contexts.
Declared interests
No specific funding sources or conflicts of interest are declared in the provided text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high feasibility ratings for smartphone technologies as evidence that they are effective treatments. This paper reports expert opinions on how easy these technologies are to implement in low-resource settings, not clinical trial results showing they improve outcomes for people with autism.