The emotional support plan: Feasibility trials of a brief, telehealth-based mobile intervention to support coping for autistic adults.
Vanessa H Bal, Annabelle M Mournet, Tori Glascock and 7 others
PMID 37497873WHAT IT FOUND
Autistic adults found a brief, clinician-guided digital coping plan acceptable and relevant.
Self-guided versions received mixed feedback, with some users feeling the strategies were redundant if they already had therapy. The plan worked best as a starting point for identifying personal coping tools.
Key findings
01Participants rated the clinician-guided intervention as having a positive impact, with high relevance scores for the coping strategies section.
02The self-guided version received more neutral satisfaction ratings, and qualitative feedback indicated some participants already knew the strategies outlined.
03Many participants recalled coping strategies from memory rather than accessing the digital plan, suggesting the technological component may not be essential.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTsWhat 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
Very small sample size (36 total, only 6 in the self-guided arm). Feasibility and acceptability outcomes only; the study did not test clinical efficacy or symptom reduction. Recruitment challenges meant the student sample was smaller than planned, limiting generalizability to that population. Self-reported data on ESP use and stress, with no objective verification of engagement.
Declared interests
The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret this as evidence that the Emotional Support Plan reduces stress or improves mental health outcomes. The study was a feasibility trial measuring satisfaction and engagement, not clinical efficacy. Additionally, the self-guided version performed poorly compared to clinician guidance, so do not assume patients can achieve the same results using the materials alone.