3,707
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Reviews

Effectiveness of interventions for school-aged-children and adolescents with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon, ORCID Icon & ORCID Icon
Pages 1708-1733 | Received 20 Sep 2022, Accepted 21 Apr 2023, Published online: 09 May 2023

Abstract

Purpose

To describe allied health and educational interventions and their effectiveness for children and adolescents with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). To appraise the quality and strength of studies.

Methods

Electronic databases were searched between 2005 and March 2022, identifying non-pharmacological studies supporting function, activity, or participation for FASD participants aged 5–18 years using any quantitative research design. Outcomes were coded using International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health, family of Participation Related Constructs and behaviour categories. Multi-level random-effects meta-analysis examined intervention effects. Study methodological quality was evaluated using Cochrane risk of bias tools, RoBiNT, AMSTAR 2 and NHMRC Hierarchy levels of evidence. Certainty of findings were synthesised using GRADE approach.

Results

The systematic review included 25 studies with 735 participants, 10 of which were analysed by meta-analysis. Body function and structure, activity, behaviour, and sense of self outcomes were pooled. A small, positive effect favouring interventions was found (g = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.15–0.43), however the GRADE certainty was rated as low. No participation outcomes were identified.

Conclusions

Some interventions targeting body function and structure, activity and behaviour outcomes were effective. Evidence of interventions that support children’s and adolescent’s participation as an outcome is lacking.

IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION

  • To address participation outcomes for children and adolescents with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD), it is important to understand their participation needs and directly measure these.

  • Interventions identified targeted body function and structure, activity, and behaviour outcomes.

  • Participation outcomes of children’s/adolescent’s attendance, involvement and preferences were not identified.

  • A combination of individual- and context-focused interventions is recommended to maximise rehabilitation outcomes for children and adolescents with FASD.

View correction statement:
Correction

Introduction

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) describe a spectrum of brain injuries, birth defects and developmental disabilities caused by prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) [Citation1,Citation2]. The spectrum ranges from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) at the most severe end, to partial Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (pFAS), Alcohol Related Neurodevelopmental Disorder (ARND), and Alcohol-Related Birth Defects, the least severe [Citation3]. Global prevalence of FASD is estimated to be 7.7 per 1000 population of children and youth [Citation4] based on a 2017 systematic review and meta-analysis of 24 studies in eight countries including 1416 children and youth.

People with FASD experience lifelong, mild- to- severe impairments in neurocognitive, behavioural, social, academic, language and motor functioning [Citation1,Citation3,Citation5–8]. Secondary effects such as difficulties accessing education services, substance abuse, mental ill-health, difficulties living independently, problems obtaining and maintaining employment and early contact with the justice system [Citation1,Citation6,Citation7,Citation9,Citation10] contribute to negative lifelong outcomes. Children with FASD encounter participation restrictions, difficulty adapting to adverse life situations and negotiating major life transitions, [Citation7,Citation11,Citation12] caused by a range of neurological impairments impacting daily living [Citation7,Citation11–13].

The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework [Citation14] conceptualises health and functioning, of people with disabilities, within broader environmental and social contexts. Functioning and disability, within this framework, are further divided into (i) body functions and structures (BFS), and (ii) activities and participation [Citation14]. The ICF framework describes how personal, social, and environmental factors impact the individual’s disability and functioning, [Citation15] which can be applied to describe the experiences of people with FASD. It was the first model to conceptualise participation and articulate the goal of healthcare intervention to enable people with disabilities full inclusion and participation in society [Citation15]. The International Classification of Functioning for Children and Youth (ICF-CY) [Citation16] further extends the ICF [Citation14] to document important factors that support the growth, health, and development of children and youth with disabilities. In the ICF framework, activity and participation are grouped together. Activity is defined as “the execution of a task or action by an individual” [16, p.9] and is qualified as “performance” and “capacity” [16, p.23] to execute the task or action. It is measured through observation of a person performing the task and their capacity to perform the task. Participation is defined broadly as “involvement in life situations” [16, p.9] in the ICF framework. Measurement of participation and its separation from activity is not clearly outlined in the ICF.

Since the introduction of the ICF-CY, there has been a more concerted effort to conceptualise and operationalise the construct of participation [Citation17]. Imms and colleagues have further defined and measured participation as a separate construct from activity [Citation18]. The construct of participation is considered an evolving, multidimensional construct [18, p.16] defined beyond the ICF that includes the personal meanings, values and experiences of participants [Citation18,Citation19]. It includes “complex, socially embedded and personally meaningful life roles and activities that children undertake” [19, p.553]. Participation is important for learning, development, health, and well-being. It is advocated as an essential intervention outcome for children and youth impacted by disabilities, families, and a research priority in paediatric rehabilitation [Citation17,Citation18].

The Family of Participation Related Constructs (fPRC) is a conceptual framework that distinguishes activity from participation, and positions participation as both an entry point and primary outcome of intervention, extending the ICF-CY [Citation16] definition of participation [Citation18]. In this framework, participation has two essential components: attendance, defined as “being there” [18, p.18], and involvement, defined as “the experience of participation while attending” [18, p.18]. Attendance is measured objectively as the number and type of activities, frequency or time spent doing something [Citation18]. Involvement is best measured subjectively by the person involved who can relate their personal experiences [Citation18, Citation20]. For example, the play experiences and desires of children with disabilities. Other elements of the fPRC framework that influence, and are influenced, by participation are intrinsic person-related constructs of activity competence, such as sense of self and preferences, as well as the external elements of environment and context [Citation18]. Recently, others have advocated using the fPRC to conceptualise and measure participation intervention outcomes and ensure critical factors like the environment are integrated into the design of interventions and outcome measurement [Citation21].

Motor impairments experienced by children with FASD have been extensively reported [Citation2,Citation22–33]. They include visual motor, fine motor, balance, co-ordination, ball skills, and delayed walking development. Difficulties with these abilities impedes (i) participation in the classroom (such as writing and other tasks requiring manipulation), (ii) play with other children and (iii) participating in sports and leisure activities. At home, children with FASD and motor coordination difficulties may experience activity and participation challenges performing daily activities such as getting dressed, or having a shower or bath. This can be related to completing tasks more slowly, clumsily and requiring caregiver support [Citation13,Citation34].

Recent literature on the participation of children and adolescents with FASD support the above findings and demonstrate that children and adolescents with FASD have difficulty participating in everyday activities across home, school, and community environments due to the range of neurodevelopmental impairments they experience [Citation5,Citation12,Citation13,Citation35–38]. Behavioural challenges including internalising and externalising conditions, emotional control and regulation, and adaptive functioning are commonly experienced and are major factors impacting their participation and inclusion across environments. In a systematic review and meta-analysis by Tsang et al. [Citation39] it was shown that school-aged children with PAE and/or FASD had significantly higher scores on both internalising and externalising problems than children without FASD [Citation39] and required clinical supports. In a study conducted by Gardiner et al. [Citation40], caregivers of 87 children and adolescents with confirmed PAE and a subset with FASD reported significantly poorer adaptive functioning skills in PAE compared with normative samples. Gardiner et al. [Citation40] also found that poorer behavioural regulation was associated with all aspects of adaptive functioning. Children and adolescents with FASD encounter challenges with school attendance, meeting classroom expectations, difficulty adapting to adverse life situations and negotiating major life transitions [Citation7,Citation9,Citation12,Citation13,Citation37,Citation38,Citation41]. Conversely, studies report children and adolescents with FASD benefit from successful participation in art, games, sports, and school to foster strengths and support wellbeing [Citation9,Citation38,Citation42,Citation43]. To optimise rehabilitation and support healthy outcomes, it is critical that evidence-based interventions supporting participation are provided to children and adolescents identified with FASD [Citation9, Citation44–46].

Research of interventions to assist those with a FASD diagnosis has evolved over the past 18 years with several published reviews [Citation6,Citation8,Citation9,Citation12,Citation45, Citation47–57]. These reviews demonstrate a growth in the evidence-base of interventions particularly for school-aged children with FASD [Citation9,Citation52,Citation54], targeting neurocognitive functioning, specific skill development and parent and teacher training [Citation8,Citation9,Citation12,Citation47,Citation52,Citation54,Citation55,Citation57]. Very few intervention studies have addressed motor skills and these motor intervention studies have not used activity and participation outcomes [Citation58–60]. Intervention trials have compared an intervention to either no intervention or standard care such as usual classroom, caregiver psychoeducation, referrals to allied health (speech pathology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy), or information only [Citation9,Citation50,Citation52,Citation61]. Previous systematic reviews reported inconclusive findings and have limited generalisability due to the poor methodological quality and variable designs of included studies [Citation50–52]. While two recent systematic review protocols propose to strengthen the evidence-base on interventions for children with FASD (to improve executive functioning, cognitive, psychological, and behavioural symptoms) [Citation44,Citation62] no systematic review and meta-analysis has yet been undertaken to investigate outcomes classified by the ICF-CY [Citation16] levels, the fPRC [Citation18] and behaviour influencing children’s and adolescent’s participation across home, school, and community environments.

This systematic review and meta-analysis addressed the following research questions:

  1. RQ 1: What types of interventions are described for school-aged children and adolescents (5–18 years) with FASD have been evaluated on outcomes at ICF-CY [Citation16] levels (i) BFS and (ii) activity and participation, the fPRC [Citation18] and behaviour in the home, school, and the community?

  2. RQ 2: What outcome measures, as classified by the ICF-CY [Citation16] the fPRC [Citation18], and behaviour, have been used to evaluate intervention outcomes for school-aged children and adolescents (5–18 years) with FASD?

  3. RQ 3: What is the quality of the evidence for interventions for school-aged children and adolescents (5-18 years) with FASD?

  4. RQ4: How effective are these interventions compared with no intervention or standard care for school-aged children and adolescents (5-18 years) with FASD?

Methods

Design and search strategy

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. The design and reporting of this followed the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA 2020) [Citation63] and A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTR2) [Citation64]. It was registered on the PROSPERO registry (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prosperso/ CRD42020186370). Electronic databases (CINAHL, ERIC, AMED, PsychINFO, Medline EBSCO, Medline Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane) were searched for eligible papers with a publication date between 2005 to June and August 2020, and again in March 2022 by CH. Trial registries were not searched as only completed peer-reviewed published studies were included. A health sciences librarian was consulted in the selection and development of the search strategy using the PICOS framework (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design) including identifying keywords and thesaurus equivalents in each database. Search terms related to FASD, allied health and education interventions, and any intervention outcomes were combined to identify relevant studies (Table S1, online supporting information). Secondary searches of reference lists from retrieved papers were hand searched to identify any additional eligible studies. Data from the search were collated by the first author (CH) using EndNote 20.0 software [Citation65], and grouped by the database. Data were exported to Covidence [Citation66] for duplicate removal and title and abstract screening. All abstracts were screened independently by two researchers (CH and EF) for eligibility using predetermined criteria (Table S2-online-only). Full-text articles identified as “maybe” were also retrieved and uploaded into Covidence software [Citation66] for eligibility assessment. PW provided a third review when required, and the consensus was reached after discussion.

Eligibility criteria

Studies were eligible for inclusion if they investigated non-pharmacological, intervention studies that support BFS, activity, or participation for children and adolescents aged 5–18 years with FASD. Studies were included if they evaluated the effect of a specific intervention on any quantitative measure of BFS, activity, or participation, which enabled us to compare these effects across intervention types and studies. Studies were included if they were published between 2005 to 2022, and peer-reviewed in any language. Randomised control trials (RCTs), non-randomised trials of intervention (NRSIs), single-case experimental designs (SCEDs), and systematic reviews of intervention studies were included to best capture the available evidence. Variations from the PROSPERO registration included searching all languages and clarifying the wording of review title and questions to enhance reporting this review.

Data extraction and management

CH extracted data from eligible studies systematically, using a standardised form in ExcelTM. Data extracted from the included studies encompassed: study design, level of evidence, number of participants who completed the intervention and in control groups, diagnostic information, participant demographics, a description of the experimental and comparator intervention, outcome(s) of interest, and a summary of results (). Outcome data were extracted for all quantitative measures, whether questionnaire or performance-based. When available, mean, standard deviation and number of participants for control and experimental groups were extracted at pre and post intervention. When standard errors were reported, these were converted to standard deviations where necessary. When sufficient data were not available to calculate effect sizes, authors [Citation61,Citation67,Citation68] were contacted to request this information; none, however, provided sufficient data. Intervention intensity was quantified by calculating the mean total duration of intervention in minutes, a total number of intervention sessions, and frequency (number of sessions per week), reported as per Smits-Engelsman and colleagues [Citation69]. This quantification method enabled comparison and collation of data across studies. Data extraction and coding were cross-checked by RS, TM, and PW.

Table 1. Study characteristics and key findings.

Coding

Primary outcomes of change in child performance scores were extracted and classified according to the ICF-CY [Citation16] levels: “BFS,” “activity,” and “participation.” We chose to code outcomes separately as either “activity” (execution of a task or skill) or “participation” (involvement in life situations) with most outcomes found to measure the execution of a task or skill [Citation16]. Where appropriate, outcome measures were also classified by the type of person-centred construct, using the Family of Participation Related Constructs (fPRC) framework [Citation18] (Table S3-online-only). We chose to code contextual and environmental factors according to the updated fPRC framework [Citation18] rather than the ICF-CY [Citation16] because the two are clearly differentiated in the former: context refers to people, place, activity, objects, and time in which participation is set and is considered from the person participating [Citation18], whereas the environment is external, referring to the “broader, objective social and physical structure in which we live” [18, p.20]. As some items on assessments could not be coded into ICF or fPRC levels, behavioural outcomes were categorised as (i) internalising, (ii) externalising, (iii) emotional control and regulation, or (iv) adaptive functioning (caregiver reported) or (v) adaptive functioning (teacher reported) (Table S4-online-only). These categories were created by the authors informed by other FASD and learning disorders literature, including the differentiation of internalising and externalising behaviours [Citation70], emotional control and regulation described [Citation71], and adaptive functioning defined [Citation72]. As the criteria for selecting studies was measurement of BFS, activity or participation outcomes for children and adolescents, it was possible to code these outcomes against ICF-CY, fPRC and/or behavioural codes; hence, there were no missing data.

Risk of bias and methodological quality assessment

CH and RS independently rated the methodological quality of included reports using appropriate assessment tools for each of the main types of study design. The methodological quality and risk of bias in the included reports were evaluated using A MeaSurment Tool to Assess systematic Reviews version 2 (AMSTAR 2) [Citation64] for systematic reviews, the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias (RoB 2.0) tool [Citation73] for RCTs and pseudo-RCTs and the Risk of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool [Citation74] for NRSIs. The Risk of Bias assessment in N of 1 trials (RoBiNT) [Citation75] was used to assess the risk of bias in SCEDs. The RoBiNT [Citation75] was included after the review was registered with PROSEPRO when eligible SCEDs were identified. All included reports of studies were evaluated individually for risk of bias. Consensus was reached through discussion.

The AMSTAR 2 [64] appraises systematic reviews with both randomised and non-randomised studies. It consists of 16 items, of which six were determined as critical for determining risk of bias in this review (item 2: register protocol; item 4: comprehensiveness in literature search; item 7: justification of excluded studies; item 9: assessment of risk of bias in individual studies; item 13: account for review of risk of bias in individual studies when interpreting/discussion of results; and item 14: explanation for and discussion of heterogeneity). When six or more non-critical weaknesses were found, the overall appraisal was moved from moderate to low confidence [Citation64]. The systematic review was rated as “high,” “moderate,” “low,” and “critically low” according to the quality rating confidence levels (Table S5-online-only).

The RoB 2.0 [Citation73] assesses risk of bias in five domains: bias arising from the randomisation process; bias due to deviations from intended interventions; bias due to missing outcome data; bias in the measurement of the outcome; bias in the selection of the reported result. Each potential source of bias was assessed as either “low risk,” “some concerns,” or “high risk.” The overall study risk of bias assessment is also rated as “low,” “some concerns,” or “high” risk. A visual plot of findings was generated using Robvis software [Citation76].

The ROBINS-I [Citation74] includes the same five domains at the RoB 2.0 [Citation73] and extends to two additional domains: risk of bias due to confounding and bias in selection of participants into the study. Each potential source of bias was assessed as either “low,” “moderate,” “serious,” “critical,” or “no information.” Overall study risk of bias was also rated as “low,” “moderate,” “serious,” “critical,” or “no information.” A visual plot of findings was generated using Robvis software [Citation76].

The RoBiNT [Citation75] consists of 15 items to evaluate internal and external validity of SCEDs. The internal validity subscale consists of 7 items: design, randomisation, behaviour sampling, participant, interventionist and assessor blinding and treatment adherence. The internal validity subscale indicates a risk of bias [Citation77,Citation78]. An algorithm evaluates methodological rigour and risk of bias of internal validity subscale items [Citation78]. Methodological rigour has six categories: “very high” (corresponding to very low risk of bias), “high” (low risk of bias), “moderate” (some risk of bias), “fair” (substantial risk of bias), “low” (high risk of bias) and “very low” (very high risk of bias). The external validity subscale of the RoBiNT consists of eight items: baseline characteristics, setting, dependent variable, independent variable, raw data record, data analysis, replication, and generalisation. It assesses reporting quality and applicability of the SCED [Citation77]. The RoBiNT is scored out of a total of 30 however authors have not provided cut-off scores to determine risk of bias and recommend using the algorithm instead [Citation78].

The level of evidence (LOE) of each study was rated against the National Health and Research Council Hierarchy of Levels of Evidence Framework [Citation79] (Table S6-online-only) to provide an overall view of the range of intervention evidence. This rating was completed by CH and reviewed by RS.

Data synthesis

Qualitative synthesis

Narrative synthesis was used to describe the types of interventions, effectiveness, and outcome measures that support BFS, activity, and participation for school-aged children and adolescents with FASD in the home, school, and the community. All reports meeting eligibility criteria were included in the narrative synthesis.

Quantitative synthesis

All meta-analyses were conducted using R version 4.0.5 [Citation80] and RStudio [Citation81]. The magnitude of effect sizes (or differences between treatment groups) was quantified using Hedge’s g, which were calculated on pre-post change scores using the ‘esc’ package [Citation82]. Pre-post change standard deviations were imputed using accepted methods [Citation83], with a correlation coefficient of 0.5 used in the absence of this data being reported. Effect sizes were calculated such that positive values would always indicate greater improvement for the experimental group. Multi-level random-effects meta-analyses were performed using the “metafor” package [Citation84]. This form of analysis better accounts for non-independence of effect sizes when multiple values are extracted from individual studies, both randomised and non-randomised, or when multiple measures of a construct are derived from different scales [Citation85–89]. Given there were few studies included in the multi-level meta-analysis, the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method was applied to estimate the variance of pooled effects [Citation90, Citation91]. Interpretation of heterogeneity at both the effect size level (level 2) and the study level (level 3) was done with I2 statistics [Citation83, Citation87, Citation92]. We included forest plots for subgroups and overall analysis to offer further visual insight into effects.

Effects of study design and outcome

First, to investigate if there was a difference in outcomes according to study design, an overall model was run on all effect sizes with study design (RCT or NRSI) entered as a moderator variable. Next, an overall model was run on all effect sizes with outcome category entered as a moderator variable. Separate subgroup models were run for outcomes coded under the ICF-CY [Citation16] categories of BFS, activity and for behavioural outcomes. No participation outcomes were identified to include. There was only one outcome category under fPRC Sense of Self, so subgroup analysis could not be conducted. Significant combined effect sizes were indicated by 95% confidence intervals that did not cross zero. The magnitude of mean effect size estimates (g) was interpreted according to the conventions of Cohen [Citation92] 0.3 (small), 0.5 (moderate), 0.8 (large), >1.0 (very large). Notable heterogeneity was indicated when I2 exceeded 50% [Citation83].

Ratings of study certainty of evidence used in meta-analysis

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach [Citation93] was used to rate the overall certainty of evidence of the outcomes used in the meta-analysis. It rated the quality of evidence as “high,” “moderate,” “low,” or “very low” in the areas of risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, and publication bias. Each area was downgraded by one or two points based on judgement criteria. Risk of bias were downgraded if the highest-weighted studies (i.e. those with the largest number of participants) were assessed as serious or high risk of bias according to guidelines provided by Schunemann [Citation94] for NRSIs and RCTs. Inconsistency was downgraded if heterogeneity was considered important (>50%) or large variation in effect size among studies pooled. Indirectness was downgraded if outcomes measured did not directly measure activity or participation. Imprecision was downgraded for studies with <300 participants for each outcome. Publication bias was assessed by aggregating all effect sizes per study and visually inspecting trim-and-fill funnel plots [Citation95] for all (pooled) outcomes, and separately for activity, behaviour and BFS outcomes. CH and BL assessed GRADE ratings. A summary of the findings table was generated using GRADEpro software [Citation96].

Results

Flow of studies through the review

A total of 2,801 studies were identified. After duplicates were removed, the titles and abstracts of 1,367 were screened. The full texts of 70 potentially eligible studies were retrieved and screened. Of these, 25 studies met the inclusion criteria [Citation8,Citation9,Citation50–52,Citation58,Citation67,Citation68, Citation97–115] - including 20 studies and 5 systematic reviews () - while 42 were excluded (Table S7-online-only). The 20 intervention studies were described in 23 reports [Citation58,Citation61,CitationCitation67,Citation68,Citation97–115]. For meta-analysis, a total of 13 reports across 10 eligible studies were included [Citation58, Citation97–100, Citation103, Citation104, Citation108–110, Citation113–115] ().

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of included studies in the review and meta-analysis.

Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram of included studies in the review and meta-analysis.

Study characteristics of included studies

Study characteristics and key findings of all eligible studies are reported in . We identified five systematic reviews [Citation8,Citation9,Citation50–52], five RCTs LOE II [Citation67,Citation97,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103,Citation114,Citation115], three pseudo-RCTs LOE III-1 [Citation61,Citation98,Citation113,], six case-control trials (CCTs) LOE III-2 [Citation58,Citation68,Citation104,Citation108–110,Citation112], one interrupted time series without a control LOE III-3 [Citation106], and five LOE IV designs including three SCEDs (using an ABA design) [Citation101,Citation102,Citation111], one experimental pre-post study without control [Citation105], and one case study [Citation107] ().

Study participants

Across the included 20 studies [Citation58,Citation61,Citation67,Citation68,Citation97–115] there were 735 participants recruited with FASD and 674 participants who completed the intervention (92% retention). Recruited sample sizes varied considerably, with a mean of 38.6, and ranged from one participant [Citation101,Citation102] to 100 [Citation104,Citation109] (). Participant’s ages varied from 5 years to 15.8 years. Mean age was 9.3 years and percentage of male participants was 60%, calculated on data from 19 studies [Citation58,Citation61,Citation67,Citation68,Citation97-99,Citation101,Citation102,Citation105-115]. Adolescents (aged 13-18 years) participated in six out of the 20 studies (30%) [Citation58,Citation68,Citation105–107,Citation114]. Mean FASD diagnosis of participants was calculated on data from 14 studies [Citation58,Citation68,Citation97,Citation98,Citation101,Citation102,Citation107,Citation109,Citation110,Citation113–115]. The most common FASD diagnosis was ARND (44%), then FAS (26%), and lastly pFAS (19%). A category for “other” (11%) included deferred FASD diagnosis and Neuro-developmental Disorder Alcohol Exposed (ND-AE). A variety of FASD diagnostic criteria were used to define the type of FASD of participants including the Institute of Medicine [Citation97,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103,Citation107,Citation116] the 4-Digit Diagnostic Code [Citation58,Citation61,Citation104,Citation109,Citation112,Citation117], the Gestalt Diagnostic Guidelines [Citation98,Citation118], and the Hoyme Criteria [Citation114,Citation119] The percentage of participants in guardianship care, identified in 10 studies [Citation58,Citation61,Citation68,Citation98–101,Citation103,Citation104,Citation107,Citation109–111,Citation115], ranged from 69% [Citation98] to 100% [Citation101,Citation107,Citation111,Citation115]. Participant’s ethnicity varied across studies and was representative of diverse populations ().

Types of interventions to support outcomes on ICF [Citation16] levels, fPRC [Citation18] and behaviour (RQ1)

There were a diverse range of interventions supporting various outcomes of school-aged children and adolescents 5-18 years with FASD (). Interventions were classified according to their (i) aim; (ii) prime target: children, caregivers, or teachers; and (iii) the mode of intervention delivery, namely direct skills training, group or individual intervention, and technology-assisted training. Furthermore, the intensity of interventions (duration, number of sessions, and frequency) and location of interventions is also described.

Target of intervention

Intervention aims

Across the studies, intervention aims varied widely. These were categorised into those aiming to improve (i) BFS, (ii) activities and participation and (iii) behaviour. Interventions improving BFS targeted attention [Citation67,Citation99], executive functioning [Citation68,Citation108,Citation115], and balance [Citation58]. Interventions aimed to improve activity and participation, addressed academic skills [Citation97,Citation98,Citation107], social skills [Citation104,Citation108–110,Citation114], task completion [Citation101,Citation102], learning to use metacognitive strategies [Citation106], and fire safety skills [Citation111]. Behavioural interventions aimed to improve child behaviour, often by reducing problem or disruptive behaviours [Citation61,Citation99,Citation100,Citation102,Citation103,Citation113,Citation115].

Prime target of intervention

In 18 of 20 studies (90%), children and adolescents with FASD received direct intervention through individual or group therapy () [Citation58,Citation67,Citation68,Citation97,Citation99–115]. In nine of 20 studies (45%), teachers or caregivers and children received the intervention () [Citation61,Citation98–104,Citation108–110,Citation115]. Context-focused approaches (involving adapting the task or environment to support children/adolescents’ activity and participation, such as teacher and caregiver training [Citation12]), were used in two studies to build teacher and caregiver capacity [Citation61,Citation98]. In one of these, teachers received professional development training and support, and changes in child performance were measured [Citation98]. In the other, caregiver consultation and community referrals to modify parenting attitudes and responses towards children’s behaviours were used in the Families Moving Forward (FMF) study [Citation61]. Caregiver training was mostly provided through individual consultation [Citation61,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103,Citation104,Citation108–110] and within a group setting in one study [Citation115].

Mode of intervention delivery

Direct skills training

Most interventions in this review aimed to enhance the participant’s activity competence [Citation18] and execution of a task or skill [Citation16] using skills-based training approaches (15 of 20 studies, 75%). These training approaches targeted activity competence required for participation across home, school, and the community. Skills targeted included: mathematics [Citation107], literacy [Citation97], social skills [Citation104,Citation109,Citation110,Citation114], self-regulation/attention [Citation105,Citation108,Citation112,Citation113,Citation115], persistence [Citation67], metacognitive strategy learning [Citation67,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103,Citation105–107], fire safety [Citation111], task completion [Citation101,Citation102] and problem solving [Citation109].

Individual versus group training

Training was provided to children and adolescents individually in 15 of 18 (83%) of the studies [Citation58,Citation67,Citation68,Citation99–103,Citation105–108,Citation111–114]. Two studies did not involve children [Citation61, Citation98]. In six of 18 studies (33%), training was delivered in groups, mainly addressing social skills [Citation68,Citation97,Citation104,Citation109,Citation110,Citation114]. Two studies engaged participants in both individual and group training [Citation68,Citation114]. In the FAST Club physical activity study [Citation68], participants received individual coaching and physical activity training in a group context. In a study by Vidal et al. [Citation114] dog assisted training was used to support self-regulation and social skills via individual and group sessions [Citation114] ().

Technology assisted training

Computers and other technology delivered individual training, targeting specific skills, were found in seven studies with positive intervention effects [Citation58,Citation67,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103,Citation105,Citation106,Citation111,Citation112]. Technology included computer games to teach meta-cognitive strategy skill learning [Citation67,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103,Citation106], fire safety [Citation111], a computer program to improve attention skills [Citation105], a virtual reality balance training system [Citation58], and a mindfulness app [Citation112]. In most of these studies, computer-based learning was facilitated with individual coaching from research assistants [Citation58,Citation67,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103]. Only two studies relied on technology alone to enable participant learning and skill development [Citation111,Citation112].

Intensity of intervention

The mean culminated duration of intervention, calculated on 15 of 20 studies, was 976 min or 15 h and 27 min (median 960 min, range 5 – 2160 min) [Citation61,Citation67,Citation68,Citation97,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103–115]. Mean frequency was 1.4 sessions weekly calculated on data from 15 of the 20 studies [Citation58,Citation61,Citation67,Citation68,Citation97,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103–106,Citation108–110,Citation112–115]. The average number of intervention sessions, calculated from 19 reports was 13.8 [Citation67,Citation68,Citation97,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103–115]. The highest number of sessions per week was four occurring in a school () [Citation105]. The least frequent intervention occurred fortnightly and involved home visits () [Citation61]. Around half of the studies scheduled interventions weekly () [Citation99,Citation100,Citation103–105,Citation108–111,Citation113–115]. The longest period over which intervention occurred was 39 weeks of school-based interventions () [Citation98]. The shortest duration was one mindfulness session of 5 min, 40 s duration () [Citation112].

Location of intervention

Interventions occurred in clinics, participants’ homes, and schools. Most interventions were delivered in a clinic setting (11 of 20 studies or 55%) [Citation58,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103–105,Citation107–115]. One of these clinic-based interventions, the Children’s Friendship Training (CFT) [Citation104,Citation109,Citation110], involved practice in the home of social skills learned by children in the clinic and caregivers practising coaching skills to support their child’s social interaction during the social play at home. School-based interventions were completed in six of the 20 studies (30%) and interventions in participants’ homes occurred in four (20%). School-based interventions [Citation67,Citation68,Citation97,Citation105,Citation106] involved withdrawing participants from the classroom. One study focused on supporting teachers [Citation98] however, details about when and where teacher training occurred were not provided.

Outcome measures, as classified by ICF-CY [Citation16] levels, fPRC [Citation18] and behaviour, used to evaluate intervention outcomes (RQ2)

A wide variety of outcome measures were used that covered aspects of BFS, activity, behaviour, or sense of self (), but not participation. Outcome measures were reported from 20 studies in 23 reports (). When coded against the ICF-CY levels, [Citation16] 10 were at BFS level, 14 at activity and none at participation. When coded using the fPRC [Citation18], measures included those of attendance (1 outcome), involvement (1), activity competence (15), sense of self (1), and context (3). No study measured child preferences or other environment factors. There were 13 reports that used one or more behavioural outcomes: externalising behaviours (10 studies), internalising (3), emotional control and regulation (5), and adaptive functioning (3).

Both objective and subjective outcome measurement tools were identified. With respect to objective tools, 16 of the 23 reports () assessed child performance directly using standardised tools (70%) [Citation58,Citation67,Citation97,Citation99,Citation100,Citation104,Citation105,Citation107–110,Citation112,Citation113,Citation115]. Subjective measures involved teacher and caregiver rating of participant performance. Teacher ratings of participant performance were reported in two reports (9%) [Citation98,Citation109]. Caregiver ratings of participant performance were used in 12 reports (52%) [Citation61,Citation99–103,Citation108–110,Citation113–115]. Participant’s experiences were measured twice (9% of reports) [Citation100,Citation110]. As a measure of the fPRC construct involvement [Citation18], participants were asked to rate their enjoyment of the GoFAR computer game intervention [Citation100]. Sense of self construct [Citation18] was measured used once (5% of reports) [Citation110] using the Pier-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale second edition [Citation120]. Clinicians rated participant observed performance in nine reports (39%) using empirical tools and other checklists created for the research [Citation67,Citation98,Citation100–102,Citation106,Citation111,Citation112,Citation114].

Quality of evidence of interventions (RQ3)

We identified studies across all six LOE of the NHMRC evidence hierarchy [Citation79] (). This included four systematic reviews that could not be rated because they included mixed study designs with various LOE [Citation9,Citation50–52] and one rated as LOE 1 [Citation8]. The quality of the five systematic reviews were rated as “critically low” using the AMSTAR 2 [64] (Table S8-online-only). Risk of bias were present in all studies. Of the 10 RCTs and pseudoRCTs reports, seven had a “high” risk of bias and three had “some” risk of bias [Citation61,Citation67,Citation97–100,Citation103,Citation113–115] (see Figure S9-online-only). Only one study used randomisation [Citation114]. Blinding of participants, interventionists and/or assessors was difficult to achieve and inconsistently reported. The 10 NRSI reports were considered “moderate” to “serious risk” of bias using the ROBINS-I [Citation74] (see Figure S10-online-only) [Citation58,Citation68,Citation104–110,Citation112]. Confounding factors, subjective outcome measures and insufficient information reported all contributed to risk of bias ratings.

Total internal validity of the RoBiNT scale across the three SCEDs [Citation101,Citation102,Citation111] ranged from three to six out of a possible score of 14 (see Table S11-online-only). Two of the three studies met the criteria for experimental design [Citation101,Citation102] and two met treatment adherence criteria [Citation102,Citation111]. All three studies met minimum standards for interrater agreement. Only one study had “high” methodological rigour and “low” risk of bias [Citation102] as it used an ABAB design with four phases, had high treatment adherence, reported at least three data points in every phase and a high interrater agreement in all phases, except baseline. Two studies [Citation101,Citation111] were rated as “low” methodological rigour and had “high” risk of bias due to less than three data points reported in each phase. Blinding of participants, interventionists or assessors was not reported in any SCED report [Citation101,Citation102,Citation111]. External validity scores across all three SCEDs ranged from 6 to 11 out of a possible score of 16. Only two of the three SCEDs [Citation101,Citation102] described the intervention setting and presented raw data in sufficient detail. All three SCEDs operationally defined the target behaviour effectively [Citation101,Citation102,Citation111]. Only one study [Citation101] reported visual and statistical data analysis. Total RoBiNT scores ranged from 9 to 17 out of 30.

Effectiveness and strength of interventions compared with no intervention or usual care (RQ4)

Intervention effectiveness identified through qualitative synthesis

Authors of all 20 studies reported improvements in targeted outcomes at either BFS, activity and/or behaviour (). No study measured participation outcomes in home, school, or community environments. Activity competence when completing homework and tidying bedroom in the home was measured in two SCEDs [Citation101,Citation102]. These studies demonstrated the positive effects of behavioural, self-monitoring interventions that were also maintained and reported as acceptable by participants and caregivers. The CFT study [Citation104,Citation109] measured activity competence in the child’s home and school environments. The authors [Citation104,Citation109] reported positive effects on child’s social skills following intervention rated by caregivers, but no effect on social skills rated by teachers (). Most studies measured the immediate effects of intervention. Follow-up data were present in five studies [Citation58,Citation68,Citation101,Citation104,Citation108,Citation109] and the follow-up time intervals varied from 1 month [Citation58] to 12 months [Citation101].

Intervention effectiveness identified through quantitative synthesis

Multi-level meta-analysis was conducted with study design entered as a moderator. This analysis showed no differences in the pooled effects between RCTs and NRSIs (F1, 132 = 0.61, p = 0.44). Therefore, meta-analyses are reported with results from both study designs combined. Our multi-level meta-analysis included 13 reports from 10 studies [Citation58,Citation97–100,Citation103,Citation104,Citation108–110,Citation113–115], 131 effect sizes and a total of 405 participants. A total of 15 moderators (i.e. aspects of BFS, activity and behaviour) were included in the overall model, which demonstrated a small positive intervention effect across all outcomes g = 0.29 (95% CI 0.15–0.43 (). However, the GRADE [Citation93] certainty of the evidence was rated as low, downgraded due to inconsistency and high risk of bias amongst included studies (Table S12-online-only). There was no evidence of publication bias, indicated by a symmetrical funnel plot (Figure S13-online-only). Low overall heterogeneity of effect sizes (39.6%) was found.

Figure 2. Forrest plot showing the meta-analysis for (a) activity outcomes, (b) BFS outcomes, (c) behaviour outcomes, (d) sense of self outcomes and all treatment effects combined.

Figure 2. Forrest plot showing the meta-analysis for (a) activity outcomes, (b) BFS outcomes, (c) behaviour outcomes, (d) sense of self outcomes and all treatment effects combined.

Subgroup analysis indicated a small treatment effect for “activity outcomes,” overall g = 0.36 (95% CI 0.17–0.54), while the specific categories of academic, language and social skills outcomes were small-to-moderate but generally not significant (). A symmetrical funnel plot indicated publication bias was not present (Figure S14-online-only). The GRADE [Citation93] certainty of the evidence was rated as low, downgraded by high risk of bias and serious imprecision due to small optimal information size (i.e. n < 300) (Table S12-online-only). There was a small, non-significant treatment effect for “BFS outcomes” g = 0.33 (95% CI −0.14, 0.79). The specific (positive) effect on motor outcomes was significant (g = 0.89, 95% CI 0.26, 1.53). Social cognition showed a small, positive effect (g = 0.30, 95% CI 0.01-0.59). Attention, inhibition, working memory, and verbal fluency sub-categories showed non-significant effects. A symmetrical funnel plot indicated publication bias was not present for BFS outcomes (FIgure S15-online-only). Overall heterogeneity for BFS outcomes was high (70.9%) (Level-2 = 21.3%, Level-3 = 49.6%). The certainty of evidence, using the GRADE approach [Citation93], was rated as very low, downgraded by high risk of bias, very serious inconsistency, serious indirectness, and serious imprecision (Table S12-online-only). There was a small, significant treatment effect for “behavioural outcomes” g = 0.21 (95% CI 0.10 − 0.33); the same magnitude of effect was also seen across sub-categories, but statistically significant for emotional control and regulation and externalising outcomes only. An asymmetrical funnel plot detected publication bias (Figure S16-online-only). The GRADE [Citation93] certainty of evidence was rated as very low, downgraded by high risk of bias, serious indirectness, serious imprecision, and detected publication bias (Table S12-online-only). To inform future research, post hoc power analysis on the overall model was conducted using metapoweR [Citation121], indicating that the study is likely underpowered (69%) (see Table S17).

Discussion

We found effective interventions (conducted in the home and school) that supported BFS, activity, and behaviour outcomes for school-aged children and adolescents (5–18 years) with FASD. Although it is well understood that children and adolescents with FASD experience significant participation challenges in home, school, and community environments [Citation5,Citation7–9,Citation11–13,Citation37,Citation38, Citation41], participation outcomes and community-based interventions were not investigated in any study included in this review. Our findings indicate that pooled intervention outcomes targeting BFS, activity, and behaviour and self-perception show mild effect (RQ4); however, the certainty of this evidence was rated as low using the GRADE approach [Citation93], providing little confidence in the estimated effect. We identified context-focused interventions used in conjunction with child-focused interventions supported improved activity performance of children and adolescents with FASD in home and school environments [Citation97,Citation98,Citation108–110]. In the remainder of the discussion, we discuss these effects according to the level at which outcomes were assessed.

RQ1: Types of interventions for school-aged children and adolescents with FASD evaluated at ICF [Citation16] levels, fPRC [Citation18] and behaviour

Diverse types of interventions (RQ1) were shown to effect some significant changes in children and adolescents with FASD at the level of BFS, activity performance and behaviour. Most participants were middle childhood aged (8-12 years), although adolescents (13-18 years) participated in nearly one-third of all studies. Modalities included direct skills training with children and adolescents; individual and group sessions; and technology-assisted training to support child and adolescent skill development. These child-focused interventions appear to ameliorate some of the key neurodevelopmental deficits caused by prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) [Citation1,Citation3,Citation5,Citation6]. Specifically, intervention studies targeted executive functioning [Citation68,Citation99,Citation105,Citation108,Citation113], social cognition [Citation108,Citation110,Citation115], use of metacognitive strategies [Citation67,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103,Citation106], self-regulation and emotional problem solving [Citation108,Citation112,Citation113,Citation115], social and adaptive behaviour [Citation61, Citation98–104, Citation108–111,Citation114], attention and working memory [Citation105,Citation108], academic skills [Citation97,Citation98,Citation105,Citation107], and balance outcomes [Citation58]. Earlier systematic reviews have also identified diverse interventions for school-aged children with FASD targeting neurodevelopmental deficits caused by PAE [Citation8,Citation9,Citation50,Citation52].

Consistent with previous reviews, we found only one study [Citation58] that addressed motor performance impairments for children with FASD [Citation59,Citation60] despite the extensive evidence of motor impairment caused by PAE. In this pilot study, participants practised standing balance to complete virtual reality games on a platform and were evaluated at the BFS level of balance, using the Movement Assessment Battery for Children second edition (MABC-2) [Citation122]. Jirikowic et al. [Citation58] reported clinically and statistically significant improvements on the MABC-2 balance sub-scores by session and group, and MABC-2 total scores. We found a positive, significant intervention effect on balance in our meta-analysis from this study, despite suggestions that the MABC-2 is not designed as a measure of change [Citation123]. The study by Jirikowic et al. [Citation58] scored an overall risk of bias as “serious” due to serious bias in confounding and missing data. The intervention effects of improved balance on daily activity and participation were not measured, however, improvements on the MABC-2 were demonstrated.

Contexts of interventions and their influence on activity and participation outcomes

Interventions were mostly delivered in clinic contexts and rarely delivered in the participant’s lived environment, where daily participation occurs. Context-situated interventions involve directly practising and learning skills within the environment of their eventual usage. Skill learning is highly context-specific and generalisation (or far transfer) to a broader context is the ultimate goal for training or intervention [Citation124]. Context-specific practice enhances skill learning by providing opportunity for essential elements of learning, namely practice variability, frequency and problem solving [Citation125]. There were four studies providing home-based interventions [Citation58,Citation61,Citation101,Citation102]. School-based interventions involved removing participants from their participation context rather than directly implementing intervention to the classroom or playground [Citation67,Citation68,Citation97,Citation105,Citation106].

Participation, as a target of intervention, in the participant’s lived environment was addressed in three studies although not directly measured [Citation101,Citation102,Citation109]. Two SCEDs [Citation101,Citation102] identified in this review used individual self-monitoring behavioural therapy to improve participant’s homework and chore completion in participants’ homes. Although these studies showed promise and positive effects, they could not be pooled with other SCEDs to strengthen findings of effect. The Children’s Friendship Training (CFT) intervention [Citation104,Citation109,Citation110] involved social skills training for children, combined with coaching strategies for caregivers to support their child’s participation in a clinic setting and applying these to home practice. The social skills were not directly practised in the school environment. O’Connor and colleagues [Citation109] found large treatment effects on the social skills of children when evaluated by caregivers, but little effect by teacher report; however, the risk of bias for this study was rated as “serious.” This pattern of finding was also shown by Storbero et al. [Citation126] who completed a systematic review and meta-analysis on 11 social skills interventions for school-aged children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

Effective context-focused approaches, aimed at building teachers and caregiver’s capacity to support children’s activity performance were identified [Citation61,Citation98–104,Citation108–110,Citation115]. These studies increased caregivers’ and teachers’ knowledge about FASD and approach to supporting children’s behaviour and social skills at home and school. Skorka et al. [Citation12] completed a narrative review exploring the experiences of children with FASD and their families and the impact on their daily function. They advocated a “paramount” [Citation12, p.Citation12] need to use context-focused approaches for children with FASD to support their participation across environments.

Innovative and complimentary interventions for children and adolescents with FASD

Innovative, complimentary therapeutic tools were among those used to support activity performance, body function and behavioural outcomes for children with FASD. Such tools included computer programmes [Citation67,Citation99,Citation100,Citation103,Citation105,Citation106,Citation111], an iPad application [Citation112], virtual reality balance platform [Citation58], dog-assisted therapy [Citation114] and physical activity [Citation68]. Importantly, these tools are readily available in children’s participation contexts and may support participation outcomes however participation outcomes were not assessed in these studies. These therapeutic tools were not described in previously published intervention systematic reviews [Citation8,Citation9,Citation50–52] and demonstrate creative, promising interventions to support activity outcomes for school-aged children and adolescents with FASD.

RQ2: Outcome measures used to evaluate interventions for school-aged children and adolescents with FASD as classified by ICF-CY [Citation16] levels, fPRC [Citation18], and behaviour

A wide range of outcome measures were used to detect changes in participant outcomes at ICF-CY [Citation16] levels: BFS, activity and fPRC [Citation18] and behaviour (RQ2). No studies measured participation.

fPRC [Citation18] outcomes measured

Although several constructs of the fPRC [Citation18] were measured, participants’ attendance and involvement in daily activities in their lived environment were not measured using dedicated participation metrics. Rather, measurement of participant’s attendance and involvement was limited to specific activities like computer game play [Citation100]. Attendance [Citation18] was measured once by measuring participants’ time attending to a computer game intervention recorded by a clinician [Citation100]. Involvement [Citation18], while a key element of participation, was evaluated in only one study by asking participants to rate their enjoyment in playing a computer game [Citation100]. This highlights the paucity of self-reported participation measures of children with FASD in the literature. By comparison, activity competence [Citation18] was the most common fPRC construct measured using standardised tools.

Sense of self, another self-reported construct “related to one’s confidence, satisfaction, self-esteem, and self-determination” [Citation18, p.Citation19] was also measured once by O’Connor et al. [Citation110] In this study [Citation110], participant’s self-perception after playing the computer game was measured using the Piers Harris Self-Concept Scale second edition [Citation120].

Another fPRC construct, context [Citation18], was identified in three studies by measuring the reduction of clinician prompting to support participant’s success in playing computer games [Citation67,Citation100,Citation106]. Context measures are useful to inform how others in the environment affect participation. In these studies, clinician prompting was used to support the participant’s learning demonstrated through reduction of prompting.

Participation is recognised as a complex, challenging construct to measure and is broadly defined by the ICF-CY [Citation16,Citation21]. A “paradigm shift” towards participation-focused practice in paediatric rehabilitation has been advocated by Anaby et al. [Citation17, p.1747] and achieved by situating the intervention in the child’s natural environment, incorporating caregiver education and training elements, and using participation outcome measures. Similar to a recent systematic review by Czencz et al. [Citation21] that explored the effects of exercise on the quality of life and participation of adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy, our review noted the absence of participation measures and community-based interventions for children and adolescents with FASD. In the CFT study [Citation109] included in our review, social skills training outcomes were measured at school and not at the training location of the home and the clinic. Given its recency, researchers and clinicians may not be familiar with using the fPRC [Citation18] to guide participation intervention and outcomes for children and adolescents with FASD and other disabilities. Anaby et al. [Citation17] have recently attempted to support the adoption of participation-focused practice by creating a Participation-Knowledge Translation roadmap emphasising the importance of participation interventions.

Gaps in the measurement of participation and child/adolescent preferences and goals

The exclusion of outcomes measuring child and adolescent preferences, goals and valued life roles is a significant gap identified by this review. There is increasing support to include children’s and adolescent’s subjective experiences of their healthcare and participation in their daily lives to contribute to intervention goal setting [Citation127–129]. Vroland-Nordstrand et al. [Citation129] demonstrated that children with disabilities can identify and achieve meaningful intervention goals just like their caregivers using the Swedish version of the Perceived Efficacy and Goal-Setting System [Citation130]. The authors [Citation129] found that children reached their self-identified goals and prioritised different goals to their caregivers across a wider range of participation contexts (i.e. home and school). As children with disabilities can participate in goal setting, the absence of studies that evaluate goal setting in children and adolescents with FASD is a notable concern.

Behavioural outcomes of intervention for children and adolescents with FASD

Behavioural outcomes, using caregiver and teacher standardised questionnaires, were the second most common outcome measured [Citation61,Citation98–104,Citation108,Citation109,Citation113–115]. Behavioural challenges in children with FASD who need intervention to support participation are well documented [Citation2,Citation5,Citation13,Citation39,Citation56,Citation131]. It is unsurprising that this review identified more than half of the intervention studies measuring behavioural outcomes.

RQ3: Quality of evidence for intervention studies of school-aged children and adolescents with FASD

All the studies identified in this review had methodological limitations. The RCTs were rated as “some risk” to “high risk” of bias and the ROBINS-I were rated as “moderate to serious risk” of bias. Of the three SCEDs, two were rated as “high” risk of bias and only one was rated as “low.” The external validity scores within the three SCEDs were higher than the internal validity scores and there was variability in methodological rigour and reporting across studies. All systematic reviews were assessed as “critically low” (RQ3) [Citation8,Citation9,Citation50–52] using the AMSTAR 2 [64] mostly by not reporting protocol registration, justifying language used in search and reason for excluded studies in review. Strict word limits in journals may explain some of these omissions. However, reporting criteria for systematic reviews have evolved since some of these reviews were published [Citation50–52] with the update of the PRISMA 2020 Statement [Citation63] and the AMSTAR 2 [Citation64].

Most studies identified had low participant numbers and measured outcomes immediately post-intervention rather than long term. Several studies did not report how randomisation occurred or blinding and numbers of participants that completed intervention in each group. Although comparison data between participant groups on IQ, age, gender, and guardianship status were often reported, the authors often failed to report other interventions (e.g. medical, therapy or educational) received during the studies or other potential confounding factors. The evidence of intervention effects for school-aged children and adolescents with FASD will remain questionable until low risk of bias is achieved.

As found in other systematic reviews of intervention studies for children with FASD [Citation8,Citation9,Citation50–52] this review identified a lack of high-quality intervention evidence. We acknowledge the challenges in recruiting children and adolescents with FASD into studies as finding those with similar neurodevelopmental profiles is difficult due to their varied presentation and diagnostic criteria.

RQ4: Intervention effectiveness for school-aged children and adolescents with FASD

Child-focused interventions addressing academic performance, language skills, task completion and social skills were found to be effective activity outcomes for children and adolescents with FASD at home and school (RQ4). Likewise, context-focused interventions aimed to support caregiver/teacher awareness and capacity to support children and adolescent activity outcomes were also effective at home and school [Citation12,Citation16].

Of the 14 studies that addressed activity performance, 10 reported significant changes in outcomes (see ). Improved outcomes were evidence across language skills [Citation97], daily living skills [Citation99], focused attention to game play [Citation100], task completion [Citation101,Citation102], reading fluency [Citation105], ability to spontaneously use metacognitive skills in computer game play [Citation106], social skills [Citation109, Citation110, Citation114] and problem-solving [Citation111]. Many studies relied on caregiver or teacher reports of behavioural change rather than directly measuring performance in context. As well, studies failed to randomly assign participants into intervention and control groups, elevating the risk of bias.

By pooling child outcomes from included RCTs and NRSIs, we identified small positive intervention effects to improve activity (g = 0.36, 95% CI 0.17–0.54) and behavioural (g = 0.21, 95% CI 0.10–0.33) outcomes for school-aged children with FASD (RQ4). These studies used language [Citation97] and social skills group-based intervention [Citation109,Citation110,Citation114] with children and adolescents and caregivers/teacher capacity-building strategies [Citation98,Citation109,Citation110] to support child application of skills in context. Caution needs to be taken when interpreting these results as the certainty of this finding was rated as low using the GRADE approach [Citation93]. Previous reviews have not pooled outcomes from both RCTs and NRSIs into a meta-analysis. Two other systematic reviews have synthesised evidence on interventions qualitatively and noted positive effects for activity (learning and social skills), behavioural and BFS (executive function and attention) outcomes [Citation8,Citation50]. Our review is the first to combine data from both studies designs into a meta-analysis.

The reported effects of studies addressing executive functioning, social cognition and motor skills were mixed. Collectively, the pooled effect of intervention across all these measures was large and non-significant. Sub-analysis showed a small positive effect for social cognition (g = 0.30, 95% CI 0.01–0.59), reflecting knowledge of social rules. The intervention that targeted social cognition mainly used group-based learning, with caregiver training to support skill transfer. The certainty of this finding was rated very low using GRADE [Citation93] indicating little confidence in the estimated effects [Citation132]. Motor outcomes, using standardised balance measures, showed a significant, positive effect for virtual-reality balance training (g = 0.89, 95% CI 0.26, 1.53) [Citation58]. This study compared balance training completed at home and in the clinic setting to no intervention. Skill transfer to participation and movement in daily living was not evaluated, however. BFS outcomes were mostly assessed using robust, direct measures of child performance and often used in conjunction with caregiver reports to gauge transfer to daily living. Analysis of executive functioning measures of attention, inhibition, working memory and verbal fluency outcomes were non-significant. Recently, Betts and colleagues [Citation57] undertook a small meta-analysis of RCTs and quasi-experimental designs across three studies that investigated the effect of intervention on executive function outcomes (visual attention and cognitive flexibility) using direct child performance measures. They found positive (but non-significant) intervention effects for all three different types of executive functioning measures.

Problem behaviour in children with FASD is frequently reported in the literature [Citation39] and was also a focus of evaluation in those studies we reviewed, rated mainly by caregivers. A wide variety of tools were used to measure adaptive functioning, emotional control and regulation, externalising, and internalising behaviours. Our meta-analysis showed a small, pooled treatment effect overall for behavioural outcomes (g = 0.21 95% CI 0.10, 0.33), and more specifically, significant positive effects for emotion control and regulation and externalising outcomes. Like BFS outcomes, the certainty of these outcomes was rated very low using GRADE [Citation93]. Risk of bias were higher for caregiver ratings as they were not blind to the intervention status of their child, perhaps promoting a halo effect on outcomes. Direct observation of child behaviour and/or teacher ratings were used in two studies [Citation98, Citation109] but did not corroborate the reports of caregivers, suggesting a possible response bias.

Recent studies of neurodevelopmental disorders (that have included FASD participants), have used various direct and indirect measures of BFS, behaviour, activity, and participation to determine intervention effectiveness. For example, in two studies using a computerised game (i.e. Caribbean Quest) with educational assistants (EAs) to teach metacognitive strategies have shown some positive effects on attention, executive function, metacognition, self-monitoring behaviour, daily activities in the home, and classroom learning and behaviour [Citation133,Citation134]. Intervention effects were evaluated in a number of ways: participant performance on academic tasks and metacognitive strategy use (activity outcomes); attention and working memory (BFS outcomes); interviews with EAs about how children transferred the skills into classroom learning behaviours (i.e. behaviour and activity outcomes), and parent and educator questionnaires about their perceptions of their child’s metacognition (activity outcomes) [Citation133,Citation134]. These studies show promising benefits on all of the aforementioned measures. A limitation of these studies is that authors did not directly measure participation from the participant’s perspective or use participation outcome tools.

Strengths and limitations of this review

This is the first systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effectiveness of interventions on outcomes at ICF-CY [Citation16] levels, the fPRC [Citation18] and behaviour for school-aged children and adolescents (5-18 years) with FASD. Previous systematic reviews identified few RCTs and a small meta-analysis was performed on measures of executive function which indicated no significant effects [Citation8,Citation50–52,Citation57]. We used a multi-level meta-analysis technique [Citation85–89], which allowed the pooling of all available outcome data from both RCTs and NRSIs to evaluate effects of interventions supporting activity and participation for school-aged children and adolescents (5–18 years) with FASD.

While every effort was made to limit potential sources of error, our review has some limitations that need to be considered when interpreting its findings. Firstly, although we pre-registered our review with PROSPERO, minor changes were made to the inclusion criteria and the wording of the review title and questions. For example, we included the RoBiNT to assess risk of bias in SCEDs after we identified SCED reports from our search of the databases. Our age range criteria excluded several studies including preschool-aged children and limit the summation of interventions for all school-aged children and adolescents (5-18 years) with FASD identified. Our meta-analysis was limited to 10 studies, with small sample sizes and rated with moderate to high levels of risk of bias. Power analysis for the meta-analysis was completed post hoc based on the finding from the overall model which indicated that the study is likely to be underpowered. We accept that the meta-analysis does have an element of unresolved error in combining effect size estimates and including studies with moderate to high levels of risk of bias. The GRADE approach [Citation93] was used to mitigate risk of bias in reporting results from our meta-analysis by evaluating the certainty of the evidence. We were unable to examine the long-term impact of interventions as only five studies included any follow up data and follow-up time periods varied from one to 12 months [Citation58,Citation68,Citation101,Citation104,Citation108,Citation109].

Recommendations for future research and clinical practice

Limited high-quality evidence currently exists regarding the effectiveness of interventions for school-aged children and adolescents with FASD compared with no intervention or standard care. No study reviewed measured participation. Measuring the impact of interventions on participation is essential to optimise health and development outcomes [Citation9,Citation18] as children and adolescents with FASD are known to experience participation challenges. Clinicians and researchers can optimise children’s and adolescents’ rehabilitation outcomes by asking children, adolescents, and families about their participation goals, how they experience intervention, and by providing support to address these [Citation127].

Picture and survey-based goal setting and participation tools have been used successfully to support goal setting of children with other disabilities. The former includes the Perceived Efficacy Goal Setting System second edition (PEGS-2) [Citation135], Children’s Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment & Preferences for Activities of Children (CAPE/PAC) [Citation136] and Picture My Participation [Citation137]. Recently photo-elicitation interview methods have explored the lived experiences of adolescents with FASD to understand how their challenges influence daily participation [Citation38]. Participation needs and challenges identified by caregivers measured using the Participation and Environment Measure for Children and Youth (PEM-CY) [Citation138] and the Child and Adolescent Scale of Participation (CASP) [Citation139] have also been used with caregivers of children with other disabilities. Researchers and clinicians could trial these tools with caregivers/teachers of children with FASD to identify participation needs and intervention outcomes.

As recommended by others [Citation17,Citation21], to support participation outcomes we also suggest that clinicians and researchers shift intervention context from the clinic to community and other settings, such as school and home, where children and adolescents with FASD will benefit from using the intervention in daily living. In addition, evaluation of activity and participation outcomes are best measured in the context in which they are delivered. For example, future studies could investigate the impact of social skills taught, practiced, and coached directly in the school environment which may then support children’s participation at school in classroom learning activities and playtime outside of the classroom [Citation140–142].

There continues to be a paucity in motor interventions for children and adolescents with FASD [Citation59,Citation60] despite the increasing awareness of motor impairments in this group [Citation2,Citation22–32]. As advocated by Lucas et al. [Citation59], we recommend more high-quality motor intervention studies that measure activity and participation outcomes for children and adolescents with FASD and motor impairments.

Given difficulties sourcing representative samples in RCTs and large sample sizes, Anderson and Carr [Citation143] have proposed using high quality SCEDs which can be included in meta-analysis. Marked variation in individual abilities can make randomisation difficult when using RCTs, diluting the ability to detect real treatment effects. High quality intervention SCEDs also enables individualised interventions to be described and meta-analysis of pooled treatment effects. Although three SCEDs [Citation101,Citation102,Citation111] were identified in this review, examining effectiveness of self-monitoring behavioural and virtual reality interventions, their methodical quality reporting varied; two of the three were rated as “high” risk of bias due to poor sampling. Addressing internal and external validity constructs through improved study design and reporting is required in future SCED studies.

Reporting practices of studies involving children and adolescents with FASD can be improved to provide more confidence in the value of interventions and reduce potential confounding bias (especially via provision of all details on participant abilities). These abilities include aspects of IQ, adaptive behaviour, social skills, language, executive functioning, academic skills, and motor skills. Specifying the type of FASD and diagnostic criteria will also enhance comparisons between studies. Describing all other interventions that participants receive during studies (including medication, education, and other support) will also reduce potential sources of confounding. Including both objective and subjective outcome measures will reduce bias and increase validity of measures and impact on everyday living.

Conclusions

This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated a small, positive pooled effect for interventions for children and adolescents (5-18 years) with FASD that were designed to support “BFS,” “activity,” and” behaviour outcomes;” however, the certainty of this estimated effect was rated low using the GRADE approach [Citation93]. Sub-group analysis showed positive, small intervention effects on “activity” and “behaviour” outcomes. No significant effect was found for pooled BFS outcomes, however, the one motor intervention study that targeted balance showed a significant, positive effect on balance metrics, while the effect on social cognition outcomes was very small, but positive. Combining child/adolescent interventions with caregiver and teacher training appears to support activity, social cognition, and behaviour outcomes effectively. As such, interventions provided in home and school environments show promising effects. Notably, no reports directly measured children’s or adolescents’ participation, preferences, or goals, and few measured their involvement and self-perception. Interventions to support community participation were not identified which highlights an area of dire need for future research. In summary, we recommend that interventions address the child/adolescent’s own participation goals, be embedded in everyday environments, and incorporate caregiver/teacher training to optimise participation and health outcomes for children and adolescents with FASD.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material

Download Zip (2.1 MB)

Disclosure statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Data availability statement

Data extracted from included studies and used for analyses can be obtained from the corresponding author.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge Semra Griffiths, Health Sciences Librarian at Australian Catholic University Canberra, for peer-reviewing the search strategy. No funding was received to undertake this review.

References

  • Department of health. National fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) strategic action plan 2018-2028. Canberra, Australia: Department of Health; 2018.
  • Wozniak JR, Riley EP, Charness ME. Clinical presentation, diagnosis, and management of fetal alchol spectrum disorder. Lancet Neurol. 2019;18(8):760–770.
  • Bower C, Elliott EJ. Report to the Australian government department of health: Australian guide to the diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD). Canberra, Australia: Dept Health; 2016.
  • Lange S, Probst C, Gmel G, et al. Global prevalence of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder among children and youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(10):948–956.
  • Crawford A, Te Nahu LT, Peterson ER, et al. Cognitive and social/emotional influences on adaptive functioning in children with FASD: clinical and cultural considerations. Child Neuropsychol. 2020;26(8):1112–1144.
  • Kodituwakku PW. A neurodevelopmental framework for the development of interventions for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Alcohol. 2010;44(7-8):717–728.
  • McLachlan K, Flannigan K, Temple V, et al. Difficulties in daily living experienced by adolescents, transition-aged youth, and adults with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2020;44(8):1609–1624.
  • Ordenewitz LK, Weinmann T, Schluter JA, et al. Evidence-based interventions for children and adolescents with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders - A systematic review. Eur J Paediatr Neurol. 2021;33:50–60.
  • Flannigan K, Coons-Harding KD, Anderson T, et al. A systematic review of interventions to improve mental health and substance use outcomes for individuals with prenatal alcohol exposure and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2020;44(12):2401–2430.
  • Reid N. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in Australia: what is the current state of affairs? Drug Alcohol Rev. 2018;37(7):827–830.
  • Domeij H, Fahlstrom G, Bertilsson G, et al. Experiences of living with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative data. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2018;60(8):741–752.
  • Skorka K, McBryde C, Copley J, et al. Experiences of children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder and their families: a critical review. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2020;44(6):1175–1188.
  • Jirikowic T, Kartin D, Olson HC. Children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: a descriptive profile of adaptive function. Can J Occup Ther. 2008;75(4):238–248.
  • World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2001.
  • de Camargo OK, et al. The ICF and the biopsychosocial model of health: from ‘disease’ to ‘health condition. In: de Comargo OK, Simon L, Ronen GM editors. ICF a hands-on approach for clinicians and families. UK: MacKeith Press; 2019. p. 8–18.
  • World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health: children and youth version: ICF-CY. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
  • Anaby D, Khetani M, Piskur B, et al. Towards a paradigm shift in pediatric rehabilitation: accelerating the uptake of evidence on participation into routine clinical practice. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(9):1746–1757.
  • Imms C, Granlund M, Wilson PH, et al. Participation, both a means and an end: a conceptual analysis of processes and outcomes in childhood disability. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017;59(1):16–25.
  • Graham F, Ziviani J. Theoretical and conceptual foundations. In: Graham F, Kennedy-Behr A, Ziviani J, editors. Occupational performance coaching a manual for practitioners and resaearchers. Abinton, Oxford: Routledge; 2020. p. 8–39.
  • Kilgour G, Adair B, Stott NS, et al. Do physical activity interventions influence subsequent attendance and involvement in physical activities for children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(9):1682–1698.
  • Czencz J, Shields N, Wallen M, et al. Does exercise affect quality of life and participation of adolescents and adults with cerebral palsy: a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;ahead-of-print:1–17. DOI:10.1080/09638288.2022.2148297
  • Branton E, Thompson-Hodgetts S, Johnston D, et al. Motor skills and intelligence in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2022;64(8):965–970.
  • Doney R, Lucas BR, Watkins RE, et al. Visual-motor integration, visual perception, and fine motor coordination in a population of children with high levels of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Res Dev Disabil. 2016;55:346–357.
  • Doney R, Lucas BR, Jones T, et al. Fine motor skills in children with prenatal alcohol exposure or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2014;35(9):598–609.
  • Doney R, Lucas BR, Watkins RE, et al. Fine motor skills in a population of children in remote Australia with high levels of prenatal alcohol exposure and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. BMC Pediatr. 2017;17(1):193.
  • Doney R, Lucas BR, Jirikowic T, et al. Graphomotor skills in children with prenatal alcohol exposure and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a population-based study in remote Australia. Aust Occup Ther J. 2017;64(1):68–78.
  • Lucas BR, Doney R, Latimer J, et al. Impairment of motor skills in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in remote Australia: the Lililwan project. Drug Alcohol Rev. 2016;35(6):719–727.
  • Lucas BR, Latimer J, Doney R, et al. Gross motor performance in children prenatally exposed to alcohol and living in remote Australia. J Paediatr Child Health. 2016;52(8):814–824.
  • Lucas BR, Latimer J, Fitzpatrick JP, et al. Soft neurological signs and prenatal alcohol exposure: a population-based study in remote Australia. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58(8):861–867.
  • Lucas BR, Latimer J, Pinto RZ, et al. Gross motor deficits in children prenatally exposed to alcohol: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2014;134(1):e192-209–e209.
  • Hanlon-Dearman A, Proven S, Scheepers K, et al. Ten years of evidence for the diagnostic assessment of preschoolers with prenatal alcohol exposure. J Popl Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2020;27(3):e49–e68.
  • Johnston D, Branton E, Rasmuson L, et al. Accuracy of motor assessment in the diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. BMC Pediatr. 2019; 19(1):171.
  • Kalberg WO, Provost B, Tollison SJ, et al. Comparison of motor delays in young children with fetal alcohol syndrome to those with prenatal alcohol exposure and with no prenatal alcohol exposure. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2006;30(12):2037–2045.
  • McDougall S, Finlay-Jones A, Arney F, et al. A qualitative examination of the cognitive and behavioural challenges experienced by children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Res Dev Disabil. 2020;104. DOI:10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103683
  • Jirikowic TL, Thorne JC, McLaughlin SA, et al. Prevalence and patterns of sensory processing behaviors in a large clinical sample of children with prenatal alcohol exposure. Res Dev Disabil. 2020;100:103617.
  • Hen-Herbst L, Jirikowic T, Hsu LY, et al. Motor performance and sensory processing behaviors among children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders compared to children with developmental coordination disorders. Res Dev Disabil. 2020;103:103680.
  • Tremblay M, Mastrangelo T, Pei J. Building school capacity to support students with complex needs through the wellness, resiliency, and partnerships (WRaP) project [Article]. Alta J Educ Res. 2021;67(1):83–99.
  • Skorka K, Copley J, McBryde C, et al. Lived experiences of adolescents with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2022;00:1–9.
  • Tsang TW, Lucas BR, Carmichael Olson H, et al. Prenatal alcohol exposure, FASD, and child behavior: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2016;137(3):e20152542.
  • Gardiner E, Hutchison SM, McLachlan K, et al. Behavior regulation skills are associated with adaptive functioning in children and adolescents with prenatal alcohol exposure. Appl Neuropsychol Child. 2021;11(4):691–701.
  • Streissguth AP, Bookstein FL, Barr HM, et al. Risk factors for adverse life outcomes in fetal alcohol syndrome and fetal alcohol effects. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2004;25(4):228–238.
  • Timler GR, Olswang LB. Variable structure/variable performance: parent and teacher perspectives on a School-Age child with FAS. J Posit Behav Interv. 2001;3(1):48–56.
  • Stade B, Beyene J, Buller K, et al. Feeling different: the experience of living with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2011;18(3):e475–e485.
  • Betts J, Dawe S, Eggins E, et al. Protocol: interventions for improving executive functions in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews. 2019;15(1-2), DOI:10.1002/cl2.1009
  • Bohjanen S, Humphrey M, Ryan SM. Left behind: lack of research-based interventions for children and youth with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Rural Spec Educ Q. 2009;28(2):32–38.
  • Pei J, Baugh L, Andrew G, et al. Intervention recommendations and subsequent access to services following clinical assessment for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Res Dev Disabil. 2017;60:176–186.
  • Adebiyi BO, Mukumbang FC, Erasmus C. The distribution of available prevention and management interventions for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (2007 to 2017): implications for collaborative actions. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(12):2244–2269.
  • Chandrasena AN, Mukherjee RAS, Turk J. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: an overview of interventions for affected individuals. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2009;14(4):162–167.
  • Kodituwakku PW, Kodituwakku EL. From research to practice: an integrative framework for the development of interventions for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Neuropsychol Rev. 2011;21(2):204–223.
  • Peadon E, Rhys-Jones B, Bower C, et al. Systematic review of interventions for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. BMC Pediatr. 2009;9:35.
  • Premji S, Benzies K, Serrett K, et al. Research-based interventions for children and youth with a fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: revealing the gap. Child Care Health Dev. 2007;33(4):389–397. discussion 398–400.
  • Reid N, Dawe S, Shelton D, et al. Systematic review of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder interventions across the life span. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(12):2283–2295.
  • Riggie J, Xu T. Supporing individuals with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: a summary of effective practices. Phys Disabil: Educ Related Serv. 2013;32(2):43–89.
  • Petrenko CLM. Positive behavioral interventions and family support for fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Curr Dev Disord Rep. 2015;2(3):199–209.
  • Petrenko CL, Alto ME. Interventions in fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: an international perspective. Eur J Med Genet. 2017;60(1):79–91.
  • Wilhoit LF, Scott DA, Simecka BA. Fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: characteristics, complications, and treatment. Community Ment Health J. 2017;53(6):711–718.
  • Betts JL, Eggins E, Chandler-Mather N, et al. Interventions for improving executive functions in children with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD): a systematic review. Campbell Systematic Review. 2022;18(4): e.1258-e.1323.
  • Jirikowic T, Westcott McCoy S, Price R, et al. Virtual sensorimotor training for balance: pilot study results for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Pediatr Phys Ther. 2016;28(4):460–468.
  • Lucas BR, Elliott EJ, Coggan S, et al. Interventions to improve gross motor performance in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: a meta-analysis. BMC Pediatr. 2016;16(1):193.
  • Pinner A, Robbins B, Thompson W, et al. Task specific motor trinaing in children with fetal alcohol syndrome. J National Society Allied Health. 2014;11:72–82.
  • Bertrand J, Interventions for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: overview of findings for five innovative research projects Study 5. Res Dev Disabil. 2009;30(5):986–1006.
  • Singal D, Menard C, Neilson CJ, et al. Effectiveness of evidence-based treatments of fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in children and adolescents: a systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2018;8(3):e013775.
  • Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
  • Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.
  • The EndNote Team. EndNote software [64-bit]. Philadephia, PA: Clarivate; 2013.
  • Covidence systematic review software. 2020. Melbourne, Australia: Veritas Health Innovation.
  • Pei J, Kerns K. Using games to improve functioning in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Games Health J. 2012;1(4):308–311.
  • Pritchard Orr AB, Keiver K, Bertram CP, et al. FAST club: the impact of a physical activity intervention on executive function in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Adapt Phys Activ Q. 2018;35(4):403–423.
  • Smits-Engelsman B, Vinçon S, Blank R, et al. Evaluating the evidence for motor-based interventions in developmental coordination disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Res Dev Disabil. 2018;74:72–102.
  • Donolato E, Cardillo R, Mammarella IC, et al. Research review: language and specific learning disorders in children and their co-occurrence with internalizing and externalizing problems: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2022;63(5):507–518.
  • Gill K, Thompson-Hodgetts S. Self-regulation in fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: a concept analysis. J Occup Ther Sch Early Interv. 2018;11(3):329–345.
  • Cheung K, Johns E, Willoughby D, et al. The association between executive functioning, attention, and adaptive functioning among children and adolescents with prenatal alcohol exposure. Adv Neurodev Disord. 2021;5(4):431–445.
  • Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898–l4898.
  • Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919–i4919.
  • Tate RL, Rosenkoetter U, Wakim D, et al. The risk-of-Bias in N-of-1 trials (RoBiNT) scale: an expanded manual for the critical appraisal of single-case reports. St Leonards NSW: john Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research; 2015.
  • McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): an R package and shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2020; 12(1):55–61.
  • Tate RL, Perdices M, McDonald S, et al. The design, conduct and report of single-case research: resources to improve the quality of the neurorehabilitation literature. Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2014;24(3-4):315–331.
  • Perdices M, Tate RL, Rosenkoetter U. An algorithm to evaluate methodological rigor and risk of bias in Single-Case studies. Behav Modif. 2019. DOI:10.1177/01454455198630354
  • National Health and Medical Research Council. NHMRC levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for guideline developers. Canberra, Australia: National Health and Medical Research Council. 2009.
  • R Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing 4.0.5. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021.
  • RStudio Team. RStudio: integrated development for R. Boston, MA: PBC; 2020.
  • esc: effect Size Computation for Meta Analysis. R package version 0.5.1. 2019.
  • Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1539–1558.
  • Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor. J Stat Soft. 2010;36(3):1–48.
  • Cheung MWL. A guide to conducting a Meta-Analysis with Non-Independent effect sizes. Neuropsychol Rev. 2019;29(4):387–396.
  • Fernández-Castilla B, Jamshidi L, Declercq L, et al. The application of meta-analytic (multi-level) models with multiple random effects: a systematic review. Behav Res Methods. 2020;52(5):2031–2052.
  • Gucciardi DF, Lines RLJ, Ntoumanis N. Handling effect size dependency in meta-analysis. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2021;15(1):152–178.
  • Konstantopoulos S. Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three-level meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2(1):61–76.
  • López-López JA, Page MJ, Lipsey MW, et al. Dealing with effect size multiplicity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Syn Meth. 2018;9(3):336–351.
  • Hartung J, Knapp G. On tests of the overall treatment effect in meta-analysis with normally distributed responses. Stat Med. 2001;20(12):1771–1782.
  • IntHout J, Ioannidis JPA, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(1):25–25.
  • Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Burlington, VA: Elsevier Science; 2013.
  • Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.
  • Schünemann HJ, Cuello C, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 18. How ROBINS-I and other tools to assess risk of bias in nonrandomized studies should be used to rate the certainty of a body of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;111:105–114.
  • Nakagawa S, Lagisz M, Jennions MD, et al. Methods for testing publication bias in ecological and evolutionary meta-analyses. Methods Ecol Evol. 2022;13(1):4–21.
  • GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool software. McMaster University and Evidence Prime; 2021.
  • Adnams CM, Sorour P, Kalberg WO, et al. Language and literacy outcomes from a pilot intervention study for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders in South Africa. Alcohol. 2007;41(6):403–414.
  • Clark E, George MA, Hardy C, et al. Exploratory study of the effectiveness of a professional development program on the academic achievement and classroom behavior of students with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in British Columbia, Canada. IJADR. 2014;3(1):25–34.
  • Coles CD, Kable JA, Taddeo E, et al. GoFAR: improving attention, behavior and adaptive functioning in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: brief report. Dev Neurorehabil. 2018;21(5):345–349.
  • Coles CD, Kable JA, Taddeo E, et al. A metacognitive strategy for reducing disruptive behavior in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders: goFAR pilot. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2015;39(11):2224–2233.
  • Copeland SR, Griffin MM, Diluzio H, et al. Teaching self-management strategies to a child with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder to increase independent task completion within typical home routines. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil. 2021;56(1):41–53.
  • Griffin MM, Copeland SR. Effects of a self-management intervention to improve behaviors of a child with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Educ Train Autism Dev Disabil. 2018;53(4):405–414.
  • Kable JA, Taddeo E, Strickland D, et al. Improving FASD children’s self-regulation: Piloting phase 1 of the GoFAR intervention. Child Fam Behav Ther. 2016;38(2):124–141.
  • Keil V, Paley B, Frankel F, et al. Impact of a social skills intervention on the hostile attributions of children with prenatal alcohol exposure. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2010;34(2):231–241.
  • Kerns KA, Macsween J, Vander Wekken S, et al. Investigating the efficacy of an attention training programme in children with foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Dev Neurorehabil. 2010;13(6):413–422.
  • Makela ML, Pei JR, Kerns KA, et al. Teaching children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder to use metacognitive strategies. J Spec Educ. 2019;53(2):119–128.
  • Millians MN, Coles CD. Case study: saturday cognitive habilitation program for children with prenatal alcohol exposure. Psychol Neurosci. 2014;7(2):163–173.
  • Nash K, Stevens S, Greenbaum R, et al. Improving executive functioning in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Child Neuropsychol. 2015;21(2):191–209.
  • O’Connor MJ, Frankel F, Paley B, et al. A controlled social skills training for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2006;74(4):639–648.
  • O’Connor MJ, Laugeson EA, Mogil C, et al. Translation of an evidence-based social skills intervention for children with prenatal alcohol exposure in a community mental health setting. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2012;36(1):141–152.
  • Padgett LS, Strickland D, Coles CD. Case study: using a virtual reality computer game to teach fire safety skills to children diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome. J Pediatr Psychol. 2006;31(1):65–70.
  • Reid N, Harnett P, O’Callaghan F, et al. Physiological self-regulation and mindfulness in children with a diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Dev Neurorehabil. 2019;22(4):228–233.
  • Soh DW, Skocic J, Nash K, et al. Self-regulation therapy increases frontal gray matter in children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: evaluation by voxel-based morphometry. Front Hum Neurosci. 2015;9:108–120.
  • Vidal R, Vidal L, Ristol F, et al. Dog-assisted therapy for children and adolescents with fetal alcohol spectrum disorders a randomized controlled pilot study. Front Psychol. 2020;11. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01080
  • Wells AM, Chasnoff IJ, Schmidt CA, et al. Neurocognitive habilitation therapy for children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: an adaptation of the alert program. Am J Occup Ther. 2012;66(1):24–34.
  • Stratton K, Howe C, Battaglia F. Fetal alcohol syndrome: diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention, and treatment. Washington, DC: National Acadmic Press; 1996.
  • Astley SJ. Diagnostic guide for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder: the 4-digit diagnostic code. 3rd ed. Seattle: University of Washington; 2004.
  • Sokol RJ, Clarren SK. Guidelines for use of terminology describing the impact of prenatal alcohol on the offspring. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 1989; 13(4):597–598.
  • Hoyme HE, Kalberg WO, Elliott AJ, et al. Updated clinical guidelines for diagnosing fetal alcohol spectrum disorders. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2):e20154256.
  • Piers EV, Herzberg DS. Piers-Herzberg children’s Self-Concept scale. 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 2005.
  • Griffin JW, Metapowe R. An R package for computer meta-analytic statistical power. R package version 0.2,1.; 2020.
  • Henderson SE, Sugden D, Barnett AL. Movement assessment battery for children. 2nd ed. London: Harcourt Assessment: Pearson; 2007.
  • Wuang YP, Su JH, Su CY. Reliability and responsiveness of the movement assessment battery for children–second edition test in children with developmental coordination disorder. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(2):160–165.
  • McEwen S, Houldin A. Generalisation and transfer in the CO-OP approach. In: Dawson DR, McEwen S, Polatajko H, editors. Cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance in occupational therapy: using the CO-OP approach to enable participation across the lifespan. Bethedsa, MD, USA: AOTA Press; 2017. p. 31–42.
  • Dawson DR. Neuroplasticity and the CO-OP approach. In: Dawson DR, McEwen S, Polatajko H, editors. Cognitive orientation to daily occupational performance in occupational therapy: using the CO-OP approach to enable participation across the lifespan. Bethesda, MD, USA: AOTA Pres; 2017. p. 11–30.
  • Storebo OJ, Skoog M, Damm D, et al. Social skills training for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children aged 5 to 18 years. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011; (12):CD008223-DC008223.
  • Ketelaar M, Willis C, Rosenbaum P. Partnering to solve the participation puzzle. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(9):1619. DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1994028
  • Ronen GM, Rosenbaum PL, Streiner DL. Patient perspectives in pediatric neurology: a critical shift in the paradigm of outcome measurement. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2022;64(2):149–155.
  • Vroland-Nordstrand K, Eliasson AC, Jacobsson H, et al. Can children identify and achieve goals for intervention? A randomized trial comparing two goal-setting approaches. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2016;58(6):589–596.
  • Vroland-Nordstrand K, Krumlinde-Sundholm L. The perceived efficacy and goal setting system (PEGS), part I: translation and cross-cultural adaptation to a Swedish context. Scand J Occup Ther. 2012;19(6):497–505.
  • Webster H, Doak J, Katsikitis M. Community-based child development service fetal alcohol spectrum disorder assessment: a retrospective clinic audit. J Paediatr Child Health. 2020;56(5):777–785.
  • Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):401–406.
  • Kerns KA, Macoun S, MacSween J, et al. Attention and working memory training: a feasibility study in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Appl Neuropsychol Child. 2017;6(2):120–137.
  • Macoun SJ, Pyne S, MacSween J, et al. Feasibility and potential benefits of an attention and executive function intervention on metacognition in a mixed pediatric sample. Appl Neuropsychol Child. 2022;11(3):240–252.
  • Pollock N, Missiuna C. The perceived efficacy and goal setting system. Second edition. ed. Ontario, Canada: Ontario, Canada: CanChild Centre for Childhood Disability Research; 2015.
  • King GA, Law M, King S, et al. CAPE/PAC children’s assessment of participation and enjoyment & preferences for activities of children. San Antonio, Texas: PsychCorp; 2004.
  • Arvidsson P, Dada S, Granlund M, et al. Structural validity and internal consistency of picture My participation: a measure for children with disability. Afr J Disabil. 2021;10:e1–e8.
  • Coster W, Bedell G, Law M, et al. Psychometric evaluation of the participation and environment measure for children and youth. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(11):1030–1037.
  • Bedell GM. Developing a follow-up survey focused on participation of children and youth with acquired brain injuries after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation. NRE. 2004;19(3):191–205.
  • Gilmore R, Ziviani J, Sakzewski L. Efficacy of group social skills interventions on social competency and participation in adolescents with acquired and developmental disabilities: a systematic review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2020;18(12):2618–2632.
  • Fox A, Dishman S, Valicek M, et al. Effectiveness of social skills interventions incorporating peer interactions for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a systematic review. Am J Occup Ther. 2020;74(2):7402180070–7402180p19.
  • Frogner L, Hellfeldt K, Ångström A-K, et al. Stability and change in early social skills development in relation to early school performance: a longitudinal study of a Swedish cohort. Early Edu Dev. 2022;33(1):17–37.
  • Anderson A, Carr M. Applied behaviour analysis for autism: evidence, issues, and implementation barriers. Curr Dev Disord Rep. 2021;8(4):191–200.