A scoping review of autism research conducted in Central Asia: Knowledge gaps and research priorities.

Zakirova-Engstrand et al. (2024) searched for every autism study ever done in Central Asia. They looked at five countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

The team used a scoping-review design. They wanted to see how much research exists and where the big gaps are.

Only 11 autism studies came up. Eleven studies for a whole region with over 70 million people.

Most papers focused on basic counts or parent views. Almost none tested real services or ABA programs.

An et al. (2020) is one of those 11 studies. They talked to Kazakh parents who felt they had no choice but to try alternative treatments. The new review shows their story is the norm, not an outlier.

Fong et al. (2023) found the same problem in the Middle East: lots of genetics papers, almost no clinical or service studies. Central Asia is repeating that pattern.

Kiep et al. (2017) saw near-zero autism awareness among Nepali parents and doctors. The Central Asian picture is almost identical, even though Nepal sits outside the region.

Morris et al. (2019) mapped global provider barriers and listed the same issues—limited knowledge, few resources, little training. Rano et al. now show these barriers are alive and well in Central Asia.

If you consult, train, or supervise in Central Asia, you are starting from ground zero. Bring simple visuals, parent-friendly handouts, and low-tech data sheets. Focus on teaching local teams to run small, solid ABA pilots that can be written up and shared. Every new study you help produce will more than double the regional evidence base.