Telehealth as a Model for Providing Behaviour Analytic Interventions to Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review

Ferguson et al. (2018) hunted for every paper that used telehealth to deliver ABA to autistic clients. They found 28 studies published up to 2017.

Each study had to use video or phone links to coach parents or run sessions. The team then rated how well each study was designed.

Every single study claimed at least one good result for the kids or parents. Yet the authors also saw the same flaws again and again: tiny samples, no control groups, and weak follow-up.

In short, telehealth ABA looks helpful, but the proof is still shaky.

Neely et al. (2021) updated the same question three years later. They agree telehealth works for teaching skills, but warn there is almost no hard data on reducing severe problem behavior. Their warning narrows the cheerful 'it all works' vibe of Ferguson et al. (2018).

Unholz-Bowden et al. (2020) seem to clash with Ferguson. In their small experiment, three of six preschoolers learned new tasks faster when the therapist sat in the room. The difference: Ferguson pooled mostly parent-coaching studies, while Unholz-Bowden tested direct remote discrete-trial teaching. Same tech, different setup, different speed.

Corona et al. (2021) stretch Ferguson's findings younger. They showed telehealth parent coaching still helps when the child is only two years old, giving you confidence to start early.

You can keep using telehealth with autistic clients, but treat it like a promising tool, not a proven cure. Push for solid data when you pick a platform, track progress weekly, and stay extra careful when the goal is to reduce dangerous behavior. If a child stalls, try hybrid visits before you quit remote service altogether.