‘Fad’ therapies for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are those approaches that quickly become popular for a while, then disappear. They sound plausible and promise amazing results, but aren’t usually supported by scientific evidence. But how can you tell the difference between a reliable intervention and a fad?
If you search the interent, you’ll find more than 400 therapies that claim to treat or ‘cure’ ASD. But recent research tells us that only 2% of these are strongly supported by evidence.
When interventions for ASD are promoted, they come with claims of all kinds. Generally, evidence offered to support these claims falls into three categories – science, pseudoscience and anti-science. Fad interventions are often based on anti-scientific or pseudoscientific claims.
Science
Science provides the best test we have of how well interventions work. Scientific claims offer objective evidence, without asking you to have faith or accept testimonials as proof.
Psuedoscience
Pseudoscientific claims use scientific-sounding words or present theories that sound plausible. But they actually offer no real evidence that a scientific approach has been used. Instead, published case examples or parent and expert testimonials might be offered as evidence.
A pseudoscientific intervention can seem credible and attractive when:
Anti-science
Claims based on anti-science generally rely on belief or faith. Parents are simply asked to believe that the intervention works. Sometimes, the people promoting it might even say that it can’t be tested because testing will interfere with the intervention. These interventions are often promoted with convincing stories from other parents.
Telling the difference
To work out whether an intervention is based on anti-science or pseudoscience, consider whether it:
If an intervention uses one or more of these strategies, it’s probably based on anti-science or pseudoscience.
Fad interventions for ASD rise in popularity and spread fast, often disappearing later. Fads:
Where do fads come from?
Fads are based on plausible-sounding ideas, rather than scientifically tested evidence. The ideas can come from anywhere. Fads can get circulated in various ways, including the internet.
In its early days, medicine was based on ideas more than on evidence – ideas about how the body works and what causes health problems. Many treatments were supported by well-known practitioners, but many didn’t really work.
In other words, these ideas were fads. Slowly, as science showed that medicines could cure specific diseases, fads for curing these diseases faded. For example, before we knew throat infections could be cured with penicillin, there were many other ideas about how to treat the condition.
A similar thing applies to autism today. In the absence of a ‘cure’, parents seek and find many different ideas about treatment.
Also, modern parents gather information in lots of different ways (including through the media and internet). So there are countless opportunies for plausible-sounding ‘experts’ to promote ‘miraculous’ new interventions for autism.
Often a fad therapy becomes popular because of its pseudoscientific claims. Although the claims aren’t supported by evidence, they might sound plausible or appealing because of how they’re presented.
Parents of children newly diagnosed with ASD can be particularly vulnerable to fads. Following an ASD diagnosis for their child, parents often feel desperate and under pressure to help their child quickly. Fads can be appealing. They often offer quick fixes when evidence-based interventions can be costly, take a long time and involve a lot of work.
A placebo is a pill or drug that doesn’t contain anything that will actually make you better, or affect your health in any way. When people taking these pills say the pills have had some positive results, it’s called the placebo effect.
This happens because people falsely believe the placebo is a real pill and will bring change. Simply doing something, rather than nothing, seems to cause a change (although the effects are usually short term).
Fad treatments for ASD can seem effective. This is because people using them experience the placebo effect. This can happen because:
Is the placebo effect a bad thing?
Any change in your child (resulting from a placebo or something else) might be welcome. But there might be other interventions that would lead to bigger and better positive outcomes. Also, choosing an intervention is always an investment of time and energy – while you pursue a fad based on the placebo effect, you’re less likely to look for another, evidence-based treatment.
Article developed in collaboration with Amanda Richdale, Associate Professor/Principal Research Fellow, The Olga Tennison Autism Research Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne.
Dawson, P. F. (2001). The search for effective autism treatment: Options or insanity? In C. Maurice, G. Green, & R. M. Foxx (Eds.), Making a difference (pp. 11-22). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Favell, J. (2005). Sifting sound practice from snake oil. In J. W. Jacobson, R. M. Foxx, & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities (pp. 19-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Freeman, B. J. (1997). Guidelines for evaluating intervention programs for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 27, 641 – 651.
Green, G. (1996). Evaluating claims about treatments for autism. In C. Maurice, G. Green, & S. C. Luce (Eds.), Behavioral intervention for young children with autism (pp. 15-28). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Howlin, P. (1997). Prognosis in autism: Do specialist treatments affect long-term outcome? European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 5, 55-72.
Jacobson, J.W., Foxx, R.M., & Mulick, J.A. (Eds.). (2005). Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Newsom, C., & Hovanitz, C. A. (2005). The nature and value of empirically validated treatments. In J. W. Jacobson, R. M. Foxx, & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities (pp. 31-44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
O’Reilly, B., & Smith, S. (2008). Australian autism handbook. Edgecliff, NSW: Jane Curry Publishing.
Richdale, A. L. & Shreck, K. A. (2008). Assessment and intervention in autism: An historical perspective. In J. Matson (Ed.), Clinical assessment and intervention for autism spectrum disorders (pp. 3-32). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Romanczyk, R. G., Gillis, J. M., White, S., & Digennaro, F. (2008). Comprehensive treatment packages for ASD: Perceived vs proven effectiveness. In J. Matson (Ed.), Clinical assessment and intervention for autism spectrum disorders (pp. 351-381). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Smith, T. (2005). The appeal of unvalidated treatments. In J. W. Jacobson, R. M. Foxx, & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities (pp. 45-57). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Vyse, S. (2005). Where do fads come from? In J. W. Jacobson, R. M. Foxx, & J. A. Mulick (Eds.), Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Weiss, M. J., Fiske, K., & Ferraiolo, S. (2008). Evidence-based practice for autism spectrum disorders. In J. Matson (Ed.), Clinical assessment and intervention for autism spectrum disorders (pp. 33-63). Burlington, MA: Elsevier.