Cited by 78Autism Spectrum Disorder ResearchBehavioral and Psychological StudiesFamily and Disability Support Research

Benefits and harms of interventions to improve anxiety, depression, and other mental health outcomes for autistic people: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Linden, Audrey, Best, Lawrence, Elise, Freya, Roberts, Danielle, Branagan, Aoife, Tay, Yong Boon Ernest, Crane, Laura, Cusack, James +7 more·2023·Autism

Abstract

Mental health difficulties are prevalent in autistic people with ~14%–50% having experienced depression and ~40%–80% having experienced anxiety disorders. Identifying interventions that improve autistic people’s mental health is a top priority. However, at present, there is no high-quality network meta-analysis of benefits and harms of different interventions. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, other databases, and trial registers until 17 October 2020. We included randomised controlled trials reporting anxiety or depression in a suitable format. We calculated effect estimates and 95% credible intervals using Bayesian network meta-analysis. Our search identified 13,794 reports, of which 71 randomised controlled trials (3630 participants) were eligible for inclusion. All trials had high risk of bias. The follow-up period ranged from 1 to 24 months. Evidence indicates uncertainty about the effects of different interventions, with more high-quality evidence needed. Available evidence suggests that some forms of cognitive behavioural therapy may decrease anxiety and depression scores in autistic children and adults; mindfulness therapy may decrease anxiety and depression scores in autistic adults with previous mental health conditions; and behavioural interventions may provide some benefit for depression in autistic children. We recommend that autistic people are given access to mental health interventions available to non-autistic people, following principles of person-centred care. PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42019136093 Lay Abstract Nearly three out of four autistic people experience mental health problems such as stress, anxiety or depression. The research already done does not guide us on how best to prevent or treat mental health problems for autistic people. Our aim was to look at the benefits and harms of different interventions on mental health outcomes in autistic people. We searched all the published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) about interventions for mental health conditions in autistic people until 17 October 2020. We also searched for RCTs that were not published in peer-reviewed journals. These were obtained from registers of clinical trials online. We then combined the information from all these trials using advanced statistical methods to analyse how good the interventions are. Seventy-one studies (3630 participants) provided information for this research. The studies reported how participants were responding to the intervention for only a short period of time. The trials did not report which interventions worked for people with intellectual disability. In people without intellectual disability, some forms of cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness therapy may be helpful. However, further research is necessary. Many trials used medications to target core features of autism rather than targeting mental health conditions, but these medications did not help autistic people. Until we have more evidence, treatment of mental health conditions in autistic people should follow the evidence available for non-autistic people. We plan to widely disseminate the findings to healthcare professionals through medical journals and conferences and contact other groups representing autistic people.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/13623613221117931

Cites

80 of 81 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Interventions targeting depression in autistic youth are limited.

    “Interventions targeting depression in autistic youth are limited”

    From Community-guided, autism-adapted group cognitive behavioral therapy for depression in autistic youth (CBT-DAY): Preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy (2024) · cites this paper as Linden et al., 2023

    The Discussion (Summary; page not provided) says evidence for behavioural interventions for depression is limited, and the Results (Effect estimates, Depression in children; page not provided) say uncertainty prevents recommending one intervention over another. That supports a shortage of established treatments for autistic youth, but not the broader implication that few interventions targeting depression exist; the Introduction lists several types. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a review of depression treatments for autistic people, only 20 psychosocial treatments met inclusion criteria, with just 12 studies targeting depressive symptoms.

    “In a review of depression treatments for autistic people, only 20 psychosocial treatments met the inclusion criteria for the review, with just 12 studies targeting depressive symptoms (Linden et al., 2023; Menezes et al., 2020).”

    From Community-guided, autism-adapted group cognitive behavioral therapy for depression in autistic youth (CBT-DAY): Preliminary feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy (2024) · cites this paper as Linden et al., 2023

    The Methods (Criteria for considering studies for this review; page unavailable) confirm that Linden et al. reviewed interventions with depression outcomes in autistic people. But the review also covered anxiety and other interventions, and the Results (Searches and characteristics of included studies; page unavailable) report 71 trials overall. The passages found do not substantiate either 20 psychosocial treatments meeting inclusion criteria or 12 studies targeting depressive symptoms. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Autistic individuals may be less able to report issues due to the nature of their autistic condition.

    “autistic individuals may be less able to report issues due to the nature of their autistic condition”

    From Rethinking psychological interventions in autism: Toward a neurodiversity‐affirming approach. (2025) · cites this paper as Linden et al., 2023

    The Discussion (Summary; page unavailable) says autistic people can have difficulty distinguishing experiences related to autism from those related to mental health. That supports a narrower difficulty identifying mental health issues, but the paper does not say autistic people are generally less able to report issues. Its discussion of inadequate adverse-event reporting concerns researchers, not autistic participants. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Potential adverse effects of standard interventions have rarely been investigated.

    “the potential adverse effects of standard interventions have been rarely investigated.”

    From Rethinking psychological interventions in autism: Toward a neurodiversity‐affirming approach. (2025) · cites this paper as Linden et al., 2023

    In Results > Assessment of reporting biases (page unavailable), the review says only a small proportion of trials reporting mental health outcomes in autistic people adequately reported adverse events. Discussion > Summary likewise says harms are often reported inadequately. This supports a concern about limited adverse-effect evidence, but does not establish that adverse effects of standard interventions generally have rarely been investigated; inadequate reporting is not necessarily a lack of investigation. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Interventions often aim to change the individuals rather than accommodate their needs.

    “interventions often aim to change the individuals rather than accommodate their needs”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Dias S. Sutton A. J. Welton N. J. Ades A. (2011). Heterogeneity: Subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment. http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TSD3-Heterogeneity.final-report.08.05.12.pdf 27905717
  2. Dias S. Welton N. J. Sutton A. J. Ades A. (2011a). A general linear modelling framework for pair-wise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (last updated September 2016). http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/TSD2-General-meta-analysis-corrected-2Sep2016v2.pdf 27466657
  3. Dias S. Welton N. J. Sutton A. J. Ades A. (2011b). Introduction to evidence synthesis for decision making. http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TSD1-Introduction.final_.08.05.12.pdf 27905715
  4. Dias S. Welton N. J. Sutton A. J. Caldwell D. M. Lu G. Ades A. (2011). Inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trials (last updated April 2014). http://nicedsu.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TSD4-Inconsistency.final_.15April2014.pdf 27466656

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Linden, A., Best, L., Elise, F., Roberts, D., Branagan, A., Tay, Y. B. E., Crane, L., Cusack, J., Davidson, B., Davidson, I., Hearst, C., Mandy, W., Rai, D., Smith, E., & Gurusamy, K.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Autistica (GB)
  • Cheshire and Wirral Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
  • AutAngel Community Interest Company, UK
  • University of Bristol (GB)
Corresponding author
Linden, Audrey
Venue
Autism
Published
2022-08-11
Volume
27
Issue
1
Pages
7-30
ISSN
  • 1362-3613 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7005
OpenAlex
W4291158558
Cited by
78
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Autism (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health Research (Research for Patient Benefit Programme (PB-PG-0418)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Autism Spectrum Disorder Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
Keywords
mental health, depression, anxiety disorders, cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness therapy, behavioral interventions, children with autism, autistic adults, person-centred care, harms of interventions, intellectual disability, evidence uncertainty
MeSH terms
Autism Spectrum Disorder, Network Meta-Analysis, Anxiety, Autistic Disorder, Depression, Humans, Intellectual Disability, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Outcome Assessment, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review