Does Delivery Format Matter? A Pilot Study Comparing Telehealth Versus Face-to-Face Movement Interventions for Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder.

PURPOSE: Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) have motor, social communication, and behavioral challenges. During the pandemic, children lost access to face-to-face (F2F) services and had to revert to telehealth (TH) options. We compared the efficacy, fidelity, acceptability, and feasibility of a general motor (GM) intervention using an F2F or telehealth (TH) format. METHODS: Fifteen children with ASD participated in an 8-week program involving gross motor games to promote motor and social communication skills. Differences across TH and F2F formats for motor and socially directed verbalization as well as stakeholder feedback on formats were collected. RESULTS: Gross motor and socially directed verbalization did not differ between the F2F and TH subgroups, and parents and trainers were satisfied with either format. However, TH interventions were longer, had more technological challenges, and required more parental effort. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study support the use of TH as a comparable and viable substitute for F2F interactions for children with ASD.

A Pilot Study Comparing the Efficacy, Fidelity, Acceptability, and Feasibility of Telehealth and Face-to-Face Creative Movement Interventions in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

Aims: We compared the efficacy, fidelity, acceptability, and feasibility of a creative movement (CM) intervention for children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), delivered face-to-face (F2F) or through telehealth (TH). Methods: Fifteen children with ASD received the CM intervention F2F or through TH. Motor assessments were used to evaluate effects of F2F and TH interventions on children's motor skills, while video coding was used to assess affect, socially directed verbalization, interpersonal synchrony, and motor coordination during training. Stakeholder feedback and training fidelity data on the intervention were also collected. Results: Children in both subgroups showed similar baseline performance and training-related improvements in motor skills, positive/interested affect, socially directed verbalization, interpersonal synchrony, and dual/multilimb coordination. Parents in the TH subgroup considered the intervention feasible and acceptable; however, they reported greater effort to supervise and redirect their child's attention compared to the F2F subgroup. Trainers for the TH subgroup reported more communication difficulties, technological issues, and longer session lengths, but found greater parental involvement compared to the F2F subgroup. Conclusions: CM interventions are consistent, acceptable, feasible, and effective in improving social, behavioral-affective, and motor skills of children with ASD, regardless of the method of delivery. Clinicians should make efforts to reduce communication/technological issues and parental burden when delivering CM interventions through TH. ClinicalTrials.Gov Study ID-NCT04258254.