The effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and experiences of interventions to reduce suicidality for autistic people: A scoping review.
Noreen Orr, Liz Shaw, Simon Briscoe and 6 others
PMID 41015936WHAT IT FOUND
Research on reducing suicidality in autistic people is in its early stages.
Interventions like safety planning and adapted therapies are being developed, but there are too few completed trials to determine if they work or are cost-effective.
Key findings
01Only 27 studies were identified, with limited completed effectiveness research, meaning it is not yet possible to establish which interventions work.
02Interventions evaluated include safety planning, dialectical behaviour therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, narrative therapy, training, and neurostimulation, alongside suicide screening tools.
03Qualitative feedback from autistic people and clinicians highlights that existing suicide screening tools often fail due to language issues, such as difficulties with abstract questions and confusing vocabulary.
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
The evidence base is small and heterogeneous, with only 27 studies included. Many studies were feasibility trials, protocols, or conference abstracts rather than completed effectiveness trials. Most studies were from high-income, Western countries, limiting generalisability to other cultural contexts. Sample sizes were often small, and there were concerns about the representativeness of participants, particularly regarding ethnicity and gender. Quality appraisal revealed poor reporting of methods and low adherence to interventions in some trials. No studies evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the interventions.
Declared interests
The review was commissioned by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Policy Research Programme and the Department of Health and Social Care. The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the existence of these interventions as evidence that they are effective. The review found too few completed trials to support any claims about efficacy, and the current evidence is insufficient to guide clinical practice decisions on which interventions to use.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →