Where are we now?
At ASI Wise, we care deeply about clarity. Families, educators and therapists deserve trustworthy guidance, and we know that navigating “sensory integration” research can feel confusing. The term has been used to describe everything from weighted blankets to full therapeutic programmes, and this has blurred understanding for years. It has also fed the long-standing UK concern that the evidence base for sensory integration feels mixed and difficult to interpret.
Three major new publications finally give us the chance to step back, breathe, and see the landscape more clearly. Read together, they show where the strongest evidence lies, where the gaps remain, and why fidelity and participation matter now more than ever.
Let’s explore what these three reviews tell us and what this means for the future of practice.
1. The Chinese Meta-Analysis: Encouraging Signals, Important Caveats
Effectiveness of Sensory Integration-Based Intervention in Autistic Children (2025)
This large meta-analysis from China combined sixteen randomised controlled trials, all evaluating what is described as a sensory integration-based intervention (SIBI). The results look compelling:
- Improvements in balance, tactile defensiveness and proprioception
- Reductions in behaviours measured by ATEC and ABC
- Consistent benefits across 1,319 autistic children
It is heartening to see sensory-rich, movement-based approaches supporting children. We want to acknowledge that. Parents reading these findings may feel hopeful, and that hope matters.
Yet, as a community attentive to integrity and co-production, we also need to read carefully.
SIBI is not Ayres Sensory Integration®. It is a local approach, developed in the 1990s, delivered intensively, and does not report the core relational, play-based, adaptive-response features that define ASI. Crucially, none of the studies used an ASI fidelity framework, and none measured participation.
So what can we take from this?
SIBI tells us that intensive sensory-motor work can shift certain behaviours and sensory responses for autistic children in China. It does not tell us whether ASI, as a fidelity-based therapeutic process, is effective.
2. The Sensory-Based Interventions Review: Useful Tools, Mixed Landscape
Systematic Review of Sensory-Based Interventions, 2015–2024 (2025)
The following 2025 review focuses on SBIs, including deep pressure, sensory diets, alternative seating, environmental adjustments, and caregiver strategies.
Across 21 studies, the findings are clearer than in previous years:
- Strong evidence for deep pressure tactile input
- Strong evidence for caregiver training and home-based sensory strategies
- Moderate evidence that combining sensory systems is more effective than single-sense approaches
- Moderate to weak evidence for classroom seating and sensory gadgets
- Insufficient evidence for sensory-friendly environmental adaptations
Notably, this review only included studies measuring function and participation, not symptom reduction. This marks a shift towards a more neuroaffirming, strengths-led research culture, and we welcome it.
Still, many interventions were described loosely, lacked clear implementation guidance, or depended heavily on adult-led sensory input. The studies varied, sometimes widely, in quality.
What this tells us is simple and reassuring:
SBIs can be helpful tools – especially deep pressure and caregiver coaching – but they are not the same as ASI and should not be presented as such.
3. The ASI Review: The Strongest Evidence to Date
Occupational Therapy Interventions Using Ayres Sensory Integration®, 2015–2024 (2026)
The third review is the one that speaks most directly to our work at ASI Wise.
This systematic review looked exclusively at studies that:
- used the ASI Fidelity Measure
- delivered ASI as a manualised, relational, play-based intervention
- measured outcomes linked to function and participation, not symptoms
- met strong evidence standards (RCTs, well-designed group studies, high-quality single-case designs)
The findings are robust:
Strong evidence
- Improved attainment of individual, co-produced goals
- Improved occupational performance in meaningful activities
Moderate evidence
- Improvements in daily living and self-care
- Better social participation, communication and play
This is precisely the kind of evidence clarity the field has needed. It answers, with confidence and compassion, the questions that have lingered for years. It also aligns closely with ASI Wise’s long-standing emphasis on participation, co-production, relational safety, and the just-right challenge.
In short:
When ASI is practised with fidelity, it supports meaningful, real-world change.
Bringing the Three Reviews Together
A gentle meta-synthesis from an ASI Wise perspective
When these three publications are held side by side, a bright, coherent picture emerges.
1. Not all “sensory integration” interventions are the same.
Most of the confusion in the past came from mixing ASI with SBIs and other sensory-themed programmes. These reviews finally separate the strands.
2. The strongest outcomes happen when fidelity, play, relationship and co-production are honoured.
This is ASI’s core.
3. SBIs have their place – especially when chosen thoughtfully and shared with families.
They make sense as supportive tools alongside ASI, not replacements for it.
4. Symptom-only outcome measures are fading in relevance.
Participation is the future. These reviews indicate a shift in the field towards goals that reflect lived experiences and meaningful engagement.
5. The “limited evidence” story is beginning to reshape.
Not because ASI has changed, but because the research world of ASI is maturing and has been learning how to study ASI with a significant effect of this effort.
What This Means for Practice, Families and Services
At ASI Wise, these findings affirm what therapists have observed for years: that children flourish when supported through sensory-motor play, relational trust and co-produced goals. They also challenge us to keep demanding rigour, transparency and integrity in the language we use.
Our stance is wholehearted and clear:
- Use ASI when sensory integration and processing truly affect participation. Deliver it with fidelity, curiosity and joy.
- Use SBIs thoughtfully as supportive strategies, never as substitutes for ASI.
- Interpret SIBI evidence with interest, compassion and caution.
And finally, to always return to the child or teen, their family, and the occupations that matter most.