Next Article in Journal
rTg4510 Tauopathy Mice Exhibit Non-Spatial Memory Deficits Prevented by Doxycycline Treatment
Previous Article in Journal
An Investigation of the Modulating Effects of Sensory Stimulation and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation on Memory-Related Brain Activity
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Brain Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/brainsci15111184
brainsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Supporting Clinical Identification of Children with Sensory Integration Challenges: A Decision Guide for Primary Care Providers

by
Shelly J. Lane
1,*,
Sarah A. Schoen
2,
Roseann Schaaf
3,
Anita Bundy
1,
Zoe Mailloux
3,
Susanne Smith Roley
4,
Teresa A. May-Benson
5 and
L. Diane Parham
6
1
Department of Occupational Therapy, College of Health and Human Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
2
Department of Occupational Therapy, Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, Provo, UT 84606, USA
3
Department of Occupational Therapy, Jefferson College Rehabilitation Sciences, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA
4
Susanne M Smith, Inc., Aliso Viejo, CA 92656, USA
5
TMB Education, 2305 Springview Rd, Norristown, PA 19401, USA
6
Occupational Therapy Program, School of Medicine, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87106, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Brain Sci. 2025, 15(11), 1184; https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15111184 (registering DOI)
Submission received: 18 September 2025 / Revised: 21 October 2025 / Accepted: 24 October 2025 / Published: 31 October 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sensory and Motor Neuroscience)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Background: Children and youth often have challenges processing and integrating sensory information. These increasingly common challenges and can significantly impact development, learning, behavior, well-being, and participation in everyday activities. Since children with sensory integration challenges, with or without other concerns, are likely to present first to their primary care provider (PCP), it is important that they have resources about sensory integration challenges and their impact on the child or the need to refer these children for further assessment and intervention. Our aim is to assist PCPs in their clinical decision-making. Methods: We conducted a narrative review of CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Medline with no date restrictions, using the structure Population (children/youth with sensory integration/processing disorder/dysfunction/difference)/Concept (screening or referral)/Context (screening from PCP to occupational therapy) to identify the pertinent literature, providing (1) a description and synthesis of a circumscribed body of research on sensory integrative challenges; (2) findings related to screening and referral to occupational therapy by PCPs; and (3) the need for development of a Sensory Integration (SI) Decision Guide to support PCP clinical decision-making. Results: Findings from the narrative literature review search were integrated with information from the author panel of experts to provide a description of sensory integration challenges. Few screening tools were addressed in the literature, and no guidelines were identified to support PCP decision-making regarding referral. A Sensory Integration Decision Guide was developed to fill this gap. Conclusions: The Sensory Integration Decision Guide provides primary care providers with a systematic process for detecting sensory integration challenges and referring to specialized occupational therapy services. Future studies to examine the practical application of the tool for its accuracy and usefulness in clinical decision-making and effectiveness for referral decisions are needed.

1. Introduction

Children and youth often struggle to process and integrate sensory information, which, if left unrecognized and untreated, can result in negative consequences in everyday activities, routines and roles. Often referred to as challenges in sensory integration or sensory processing, these interconnected terms describe the neural processes through which we organize sensory inputs from the body and the environment and use this information to adaptively interact with the world [1]. Applying the theory of Ayres Sensory Integration® [2], these functions are foundational to everyday activities, and disruptions can have pervasive effects on behavioral and emotional regulation, motor performance, social interaction, self-care, and learning. While readers may encounter these and various other terms in the literature or the vernacular of families or professionals, to promote clarity and consistency, in this paper, we employ two terms: (1) sensory integration, encompassing sensory responsivity, sensory perception, and sensory–motor abilities, and (2) occupational therapy using Ayres Sensory Integration® (ASI) to refer to the theoretical model for assessment and intervention. We present this framework to assist readers in understanding how sensory integration challenges may manifest in children and to assist in ensuring the provision of appropriate services/supports when present.
Intervention based on Ayres Sensory Integration® is considered the gold-standard for individuals with sensory challenges. Grounded in neuroscience [1], this intervention has specific requirements for therapist qualifications and the processes of assessment and intervention designed to remediate underlying sensory issues that affect functional performance [3,4]. It is described in detail by Schaaf and Mailloux, 2015 [5].
Differences in how we process and integrate sensation impact many facets of life. Researchers have shown that children with sensory integration challenges experience behavioral difficulties that interfere with their ability to engage in social interaction, play with peers [6,7], sleep adequately [8,9], benefit from learning environments [10], and engage in other routine childhood activities [11]. In addition, evidence indicates that parenting stress [12] and strain [13] is high when a child has sensory integration challenges and that families often make accommodations for their child, limiting participation in family routines and community activities [14,15,16,17].
Sensory integration challenges manifest as difficulties in sensory perception, hypo- or hyper-responsivity, and engagement in sensory–motor activities. Differences in sensory perception occur in any sensory system and may impact motor abilities. Responsivity differences also occur across sensory systems and are reflected in behaviors ranging from withdrawal from or intense response to sensation to not recognizing sensory cues from people and things in the environment. Sensory–motor difficulties include poor postural control and coordination of eye movements and challenges with motor planning /execution of movements [18]. Functionally, these differences are seen as motor clumsiness, challenges with balance, and difficulty with age-appropriate motor skill attainment [19]. Ultimately, these sensory integration challenges interfere with children’s abilities to engage in everyday occupations such as self-care, play, leisure, and school activities. Parents report that such challenges are among the most difficult issues they face in managing their child’s behavior and engagement in everyday activities. Consequently, parents rate occupational therapy intervention as a top priority for remediating these challenges [20,21,22].
Sensory integration challenges are often comorbid with existing neurodevelopmental or mental health conditions such as autism [23,24] and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder [ADHD] (e.g., [25]), as well as some psychiatric disorders. Additionally, these challenges can manifest in children with no other condition [26,27,28]. The high prevalence of sensory integration challenges in children with (50–90%) and without (5–20%) other diagnoses [26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38] highlights the importance of accurate detection and intervention.
Since children with sensory integration challenges, with or without other concerns, are likely to present first to their primary care provider (PCP), it is important that they have resources about sensory integration challenges and their impact on the child or the need to refer these children for further assessment and intervention. Our aim is to assist PCPs in their clinical decision-making. Toward this end, we summarize foundational information to support an understanding of these challenges, as well as the literature on screening and referral for sensory integration challenges. The goal of this narrative review is to facilitate accurate detection of children with sensory integration challenges in need of referral to an occupational therapist specializing in Ayres Sensory Integration ® assessment and intervention.
Thus, this study comprises (1) a description and synthesis of a circumscribed body of research on sensory integrative challenges; (2) findings related to screening and referral to occupational therapy by PCPs; and (3) the need for development of a Sensory Integration (SI) Decision Guide to support clinical decision-making in the process of identification and referral of children with or without sensory integrative challenges.

2. Materials and Methods

A narrative review is a flexible methodology for synthesizing information in a meaningful way for a specific purpose. Although narrative reviews are non-systematic and less rigorous than scoping or systematic reviews, this approach provides an appropriate structure for synthesizing and interpreting the selected research related to the aim of this study [39,40]. Additionally, studies by the authors, acknowledged authorities in sensory integration, are also included. Because this study is a review of the existing literature, ethics approval was not required.
Our review is focused on assisting PCPs to recognize and understand behaviors that reflect sensory integration challenges; identify screening tools that substantiate a link to sensory integration; and refer appropriately to occupational therapy. In synthesizing findings, we sought to identify supports that might exist to inform PCPs’ clinical decision-making. We provide information to help PCPs reframe the way they think about child behaviors by considering how challenges in processing and integrating sensation impact daily life functioning. Additionally, based on the existing literature, we assess the need for a decision-making guide to support PCPs’ clinical judgement.
We structured our search strategy using Population/Concept/Context (PCC) rather than a Population/Intervention/Comparison/Outcome (PICO) strategy. We determined this to be appropriate for our narrative review because we were not investigating a specific intervention or outcome. We searched CINAHL, PsychInfo, and Medline, all through EBSCO. Key terms could be found in title, abstract, key terms, or text. See Table 1 for a full list. Our search terms were purposefully broad to identify as many articles as possible. Population terms were designed to capture the myriad terms used to describe sensory integrative challenges; children with such challenges were our population of interest. We included “screening” as a Concept term to capture the process of using a screening tool that would shed light on strengths and concerns for the population of interest. Referral terms, also an aspect of Concept, were identified to capture referrals from PCPs and other health professionals. For Context, we were interested in screening and referral from PCPs and referral to occupational therapy. We searched each term separately and subsequently combined terms to meet our aims. As such, the following combinations were searched:
(1)
All population terms + screening;
(2)
All population terms +all referral terms;
(3)
(All population terms + screening) + all primary care terms;
(4)
(All population terms +all referral terms) + all primary care terms;
(5)
(All population terms + all referral terms) + all occupational therapy terms;
(6)
((All population terms + all referral terms) + (all occupational therapy terms) + (all primary care terms)).
We limited the search to children and youth and excluded works not written in English. There were no date restrictions; we excluded materials that were potentially not peer-reviewed (e.g., dissertations, practice journals, newsletters); we did not systematically search the gray literature.
We did not use GenAI at any point in the preparation of this manuscript.

3. Results

The results of this study represent an integration of data from the narrative literature review search, augmented by data from the author panel of experts. We organized outcomes by the overall goal of this study to support PCPs in accurately identifying and referring children with sensory integration challenges. Relevant background information includes a rationale for the need, preliminary data on prevalence, a description of the condition and the appropriate intervention, existing data on screening and referral, and need for the development of an SI Decision Guide.

3.1. Understanding Sensory Integration

Expertise in understanding sensory integration processes and challenges historically lies within occupational therapy [2]. Occupational therapists have built on the original theory, developed assessment tools, and conducted studies to test the effectiveness of the intervention. While sensory integration challenges may appear across child healthcare disciplines, the literature demonstrates a preponderance of studies within occupational therapy [6,8,35,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52].
Our results reinforce that sensory integration challenges can be associated with other developmental, behavioral, and emotional challenges in children with no diagnosis, as well as those with comorbid diagnoses. The extent of these challenges is evident in a range of clinical groups such as children with ASD [31], ADHD [25], Down’s syndrome [53,54], fetal alcohol spectrum disorders [55,56], pediatric acute-onset neuropsychiatric syndrome [47], and preterm infants [57,58]. Within this literature is the recognition of the importance of educating physicians and caregivers about both the symptoms and impacts of sensory integration challenges on these clinical groups [58,59]. Prevalence estimates tend to vary by clinical condition, with values as high as 80% in ASD [60], 40% in ADHD [43], and 87% in preterm infants [59].
The literature also reveals specific clusters of symptoms as well as their impact. Sensory integration challenges include difficulties in sensory–motor processing, somatosensory processing, and/or sensory modulation [57]; these negatively affect a range of childhood activities, including performance of basic academic or daily life activities [47,61,62]. Sleeman and colleagues [63] indicated that the diversity, intensity of, and independence in these activities were impacted.
ASI is often referred to as the ‘gold-standard’ intervention for sensory integration challenges; it is certainly the most well studied. Studies demonstrating the effectiveness of ASI appear across populations with a wide range of child conditions including those with and without comorbid diagnoses. ASI is deemed an evidence-based approach for children with autism [50,64,65] and has been shown to produce positive outcomes across multiple populations [41,52,64,66,67]. A growing body of literature indicates maintenance of gains 6 to 12 months beyond immediate completion of an intervention program [45], in some cases extending to several years after intervention [44].
In summary, this narrative review reinforces earlier statements indicating that sensory integrative challenges are widespread across children with and without other conditions and that there are identifiable clusters of symptoms that have a meaningful negative impact on daily lives. Occupational therapists are the professionals with the greatest expertise in remediating these challenges. ASI intervention has been successfully used to support development and participation in daily life activities with the potential for long-lasting positive effects.

3.2. Screening and Referral

Investigators reported the use of a range of tools to identify sensory integration challenges, most qualifying as assessment rather than as screeners. Two tools identified could potentially be used for screening by PCPs: the Motor Planning Maze Assessment is suggested as a screening tool for sensory-based motor challenges, while the STAR Institute for Sensory Processing Disorder Checklist screens for several aspects of sensory integration, including reactivity, discrimination, motor praxis, and impact on childhood occupations. We also identified a new tool that may serve as a screener to investigate the impact of sensory integration challenges on participation in infancy (Sensory Integration Infant Routines Questionnaire) [68,69].
While not screening tools, we found other assessments in our search; they are those typically used by occupational therapists to aid in the assessment of sensory integration challenges.
Two standardized caregiver or self-report measures, often used in research and clinical practice, also appeared in our search; these have been adopted by professionals other than occupational therapists for screening purposes: The Sensory Profile-2 Suite [70] and The Sensory Processing Measure-2 [71]. Both sets of tools include multiple forms, spanning the age range and contexts of home, school, and community. We suggest these measures are best included as part of a comprehensive occupational therapy evaluation of sensory integration functions, although PCPs may find them useful for identifying sensory challenges.
Five publications [72,73,74,75,76] addressed appropriate referrals to occupational therapy by potential PCP professionals. The professionals standing as PCPs in these studies included child psychiatrists [72], social workers, [75], psychiatric nurses [74], and nurse practitioners [76,77]. No investigators provided or referenced specific screening tools, although most offered caregiver questions. Most authors agreed that occupational therapists have the greatest expertise in sensory integration and suggested the benefit of referral to occupational therapy.

3.3. The Need for a Sensory Integration Decision Guide

We were unable to find a decision guide to support PCP clinical decision-making for sensory integration challenges. Authors and investigators in professions that are front-line [72,73,74,75,76,77] indicated that practitioners in their profession need basic knowledge of sensory integration theory and practice. When faced with the task of identifying children who could benefit from occupational therapy, investigators suggested red-flag behaviors that could be used to inform referral. Examples include showing unusual responses to sensation, reflected in over- or under-responsivity to everyday sensation, challenges with sensory discrimination that may impact handwriting, gross or fine motor skill, balance, or postural control. Questions offered by Walbam (2014) [75] could facilitate information gathering from caregivers regarding potential sensory integration challenges:
  • Is the child picky about certain tastes or textures when eating?
  • Does the child have difficulty getting dressed or finding comfortable clothing?
  • Has the child been sensitive to sounds?
  • Does the child withdraw when there is noisy group play?
  • Do sensory experiences like these interfere with social or academic functioning?
Importantly, authors recognized the overlap between, and/or co-existence of features of, sensory integration challenges and those of other conditions, such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, learning challenges, autism, and childhood affect regulation [72,73,74,75,76]. This overlap makes differential diagnosis challenging.
Thus, while existing recommendations and suggestions may be helpful, they fall short of a decision guide with a defined process and procedure for PCPs to use in identifying sensory integration challenges for the purpose of appropriate referrals. Decision guides or aids are common in many professions; they guide decision-making by providing practitioners with an evidence-based synthesis of relevant clinical indicators [78]. Rim and colleagues [79] indicated that such guides help practitioners make decisions about health care. We suggest that a decision guide could be useful for PCPs who see children with behavioral, emotional, and/or learning difficulties that may have a basis in sensory integration.

4. Discussion

Our narrative review supports the prevalence and impact of sensory integration challenges on a range of children. Coupling the identified literature with author knowledge, we document that these challenges often co-occur in children with a multitude of diagnoses, as well as in conjunction with concerns across behavioral [15], emotional [80], and developmental realms [81]. Thus, we sought information on screening and referral of children with sensory integration challenges to occupational therapy. We found few publications from only a handful of PCPs [72,73,74,75,76,77]. Those publications identify the need for knowledge of sensory integration challenges, and most recommended referral to occupational therapy. However, none provided a structured means to determine if sensory integration challenges contribute to caregiver concerns. This gap impacts the practice of health care professionals and, potentially, the welfare of affected children. Resources to support clinical decision-making for children and adults are common in the literature for other clinical conditions [79,82,83]. Such resources are essential tools to facilitate early identification and appropriate referrals.
In conducting this review, our aim was to identify the literature that could assist PCPs in their decision-making and potentially educate healthcare professions in the identification and referral of children with sensory integration challenges. Because of the prevalence of sensory integration challenges among children and youth and the absence of appropriate tools for making appropriate referrals for occupational therapy assessment and intervention, we created the Sensory Integration (SI) Decision Guide (Figure 1). As numerous authors [72,73,74,75,76,77] have indicated, PCPs require introductory knowledge of sensory integration theory to support clinical examination; this includes collecting information from caregivers as to the child’s functioning at home, school, and in the community. Children with sensory integration challenges often present with delays in self-care, dressing, and eating, as well as with motor coordination challenges, sensitivities, and challenging behaviors. These can be identified in conversation with the caregiver. Notably, there is high co-morbidity of these behaviors with autism, ADHD, and other neurodevelopmental or mental health conditions. While PCPs are in the best position to screen for these conditions, they should always look for the presence of co-occurring sensory integration challenges that may respond well to ASI and occupational therapy.
If the PCP identifies concerns about the child’s development, the decision guide can be used to help determine if these concerns have a sensory integrative basis or may be associated with some other neurodevelopmental condition. To achieve this, the SI Decision Guide includes guiding questions about childhood challenges and occupations that may be disrupted by sensory integration concerns. These questions indicate actions the PCP can take towards accurately identifying the child’s individualized needs. We present two pathways, one leading to referral to occupational therapy (green in Figure 1) and the other to screening for other conditions and monitoring or referral to other professionals (red in Figure 1). Regardless of whether a comorbid condition exists, if parental concerns or child history suggest challenges in sensory and motor abilities impacting daily life, the SI Decision Guide may be helpful in screening for sensory integration challenges. We offer two short case examples using the SI Decision Guide in the Supplementary Material.
While the literature we found in our review did not identify a wealth of screening tools, there are myriad checklists addressing sensory integrative challenges available on the web through occupational therapy clinics. Some examples of these checklists include those available from the Spiral Foundation (http://bit.ly/4pc0nY2, accessed on 23 October 2025, or https://www.thespiralfoundation.org/ash, accessed on 23 October 2025), and the STAR Institute (https://sensoryhealth.org/basic/symptoms-checklist, accessed on 23 October 2025). These non-standardized tools provide initial information as to the nature of the challenges but do not provide standard scores or scoring guidelines. They are a place to begin exploring sensory integration challenges and gain an initial understanding of reported concerns. Importantly, the most useful checklists include questions related to sensory perception, sensory responsivity, and sensory–motor abilities.
When available, PCPs should utilize standardized and validated tools. Both the Sensory Processing Measure-2 (SPM-2) [71] and the Sensory Profile-2 suite (SP-2) [70] deliver insight into sensory-integration-related challenges and provide standard scores. If screening or use of these standardized tools suggest sensory integration impairments, referral to an occupational therapist for a comprehensive assessment is a recommended next step.
When screening suggests sensory-integration-related challenges, we recommend collaborating with the family to determine needs, priorities, and preferences for their child as well as the contexts in which the child’s participation is compromised. If referral to occupational therapy is the next step, it is essential to select a therapist with appropriate training in Ayres Sensory Integration® (ASI) intervention. Therapists trained in this approach have the advanced knowledge to ensure appropriate assessment and provision of intervention [4,84].
Occupational therapy using ASI is distinguished from other sensory-based interventions, such as “sensory diets,” or specific sensory strategies, such as a brushing protocol or listening to music on headphones [18]. Occupational therapy using ASI is the only evidence-based occupational therapy treatment for sensory integration challenges. There is good evidence for the efficacy of ASI with autistic children [5,48,64,65] and emerging evidence for its efficacy with children with a range of other conditions. These include, for instance, cerebral palsy and cortical visual impairment [85] and ADHD [32]. Emerging efficacy evidence is also available for children with no specific medical or behavioral diagnosis [41,42,45,46,52,86]. As an evidence-based intervention, some insurance carriers cover occupational therapy using ASI as a neurodevelopmental concern.
Children receiving ASI have realized numerous gains, including independence in daily activities, improved participation in social situations, and better regulated behavior [50,51,52,64,65]. Researchers have also reported that children experience improved receptive communication and fine and gross motor skills [41,42], functional regulation and participation in school [52], and gains in individually established family-centered goal-attainment-scaled goals [5,46].
We sought to identify tools and processes to assist PCPs to screen and refer children with potential sensory integration challenges for in-depth assessment and intervention. However, we found few existing tools. To reduce that gap, we developed the SI Decision Guide in the hope that families directed to the appropriate services for their child will experience much smoother daily life.

5. Conclusions and Future Directions

Prevalence of sensory integration challenges is high in children with and without other diagnosed conditions. However, as this review shows, there is little in the literature to support PCPs to identify signs of difficulties with sensory integration that impact everyday life. The SI Decision Guide developed in this research is the only tool of its kind supporting screening procedures to determine the need for assessment by a trained occupational therapist. When a sensory integration challenge is determined, the literature supports the use of an evidence-based occupational therapy intervention such as ASI.
The potential impact of this tool may be far-reaching. PCPs can feel more confident about appropriate referrals to an occupational therapist, and families can benefit from the support provided by their PCP in navigating their child’s treatment plan. If a trained occupational therapist confirms the presence of a sensory integration challenge and implements individualized intervention, children and families can expect the impact of such challenges to be minimized and daily life experiences maximized.
As a new tool, the SI Decision Guide requires empirical testing. Future studies are needed to evaluate its practical application. Such studies require both qualitative and quantitative data collection to examine the appropriateness, clarity, and completeness of referrals. Qualitative data from PCPs should focus on feedback related to clinical relevance in real-world use. Retrospective validation metrics from patient charts can address the sensitivity and specificity of the tool. Effectiveness regarding the SI Decision Guide’s impact on child outcomes in therapy will also be crucial [87]. Finally, it will be necessary to test the usefulness of the SI Decision Guide with other professionals who encounter children with sensory integration challenges, and are in a position to refer them to necessary services (e.g., teachers, social workers, nurse practitioners).

6. Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, it was inherently limited due to the choice of methodology. A narrative review is a structured-yet-flexible investigation of the literature, which, in this case, identified little support for PCPs for recognizing and referring children with potential sensory integration challenges. While this type of review inherently lacks the rigor of a systematic review, it was appropriate for this purpose. The study covered a broad overview of sensory integration challenges; nonetheless, what is presented is not an inclusive review of sensory integration. Second, by necessity, this narrative review included studies employing a wide variety of methodologies and provided an overall summary and interpretation of information related to sensory integration. Third, this narrative review selected only relevant sources regarding sensory integration that could be grouped meaningfully to support the rationale and procedures PCPs could use for identification and referral to occupational therapy services. As with many narrative reviews, some bias might exist due to the expert panel who reviewed and interpreted the literature. Lastly, this information is based on an understanding of the health care delivery in the United States and may not be applicable to other countries.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/brainsci15111184/s1, Two short cases.

Author Contributions

All authors contributed to the conceptualization and methodology. Writing—original draft preparation, S.J.L., S.A.S., R.S. and A.B. Writing—revision, S.J.L. and S.A.S. Writing—review and editing was carried out by all authors for both the original and the revised versions of this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not require ethical approval.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors Zoe Mailloux, L. Diane Parham, and Susanne Smith Roley are co-authors of the Evaluation in Ayres Sensory Integration (EASI), a set of tests which measure sensory and motor functions in children, which are freely available and for which they receive no royalties. Authors Zoe Mailloux and Susanne Smith Roley are instructors, and author Rosanne Schaaf is the Director of Research for a non-profit organization, the Collaborative for Leadership in Ayres Sensory Integration, which offers continuing education programs related to sensory integration. These authors receive teaching honoraria, royalties, and salary related to these programs. L. Diane Parham. is co-author of the Sensory Processing Measure-2, for which she receives royalties. Author Susanne Smith Roley was employed by the company Susanne M Smith, Inc. Author Teresa A. May-Benson was employed by the company TMB Education. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

  1. Lane, S.J.; Mailloux, Z.; Schoen, S.; Bundy, A.; May-Benson, T.A.; Parham, L.D.; Smith Roley, S.; Schaaf, R.C. Neural Foundations of Ayres Sensory Integration®. Brain Sci. 2019, 9, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Ayres, A.J. Sensory Integration and Learning Disorders; Western Psychological Services: Torrance, CA, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  3. Parham, L.D.; Cohn, E.S.; Spitzer, S.; Koomar, J.A.; Miller, L.J.; Burke, J.P.; Brett-Green, B.; Mailloux, Z.; May-Benson, T.A.; Smith Roley, S.; et al. Fidelity in sensory integration intervention research. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2007, 61, 216–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Parham, L.D.; Roley, S.S.; May-Benson, T.A.; Koomar, J.; Brett-Green, B.; Burke, J.P.; Cohn, E.S.; Mailloux, Z.; Miller, L.J.; Schaaf, R.C. Development of a fidelity measure for research on the effectiveness of the Ayres Sensory Integration intervention. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2011, 65, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schaaf, R.C.; Mailloux, Z. A Clinician’s Guide for Implementing Ayres Sensory Integration: Promoting Participation for Children with Autism; AOTA Press: Bethesda, MD, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  6. Schaaf, R.C.; Toth-Cohen, S.; Johnson, S.L.; Outten, G.; Benevides, T.W. The everyday routines of families of children with autism: Examining the impact of sensory processing difficulties on the family. Autism 2011, 15, 373–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Brady, E.; Brown, T. An investigation of the association between school-aged children’s sensory processing and their self-reported leisure activity participation and preferences. J. Occup. Ther. Schls. Early 2022, 16, 51–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hartman, A.G.; McKendry, S.; Soehner, A.; Bodison, S.; Akcakaya, M.; DeAlmeida, D.; Bendixen, R. Characterizing sleep differences in children with and without sensory sensitivities. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 875766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Lane, S.J.; Leão, M.A.; Spielmann, V. Sleep, sensory integration/processing, and autism: A scoping review. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 877527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gigliotti, F.; Giovannone, F.; Belli, A.; Sogos, C. Atypical sensory processing in neurodevelopmental disorders: Clinical phenotypes in preschool-aged children. Children 2024, 11, 875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Loh, S.Y.; Ee, S.I.; Marret, M.J. Sensory processing and its relationship to participation among childhood occupations in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: Exploring the profile of differences. Int. J. Dev. Disabil. 2021, 69, 226–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chiang, W.C.; Tseng, M.H.; Fu, C.P.; Chuang, I.C.; Lu, L.; Shieh, J.Y. Exploring sensory processing dysfunction, parenting stress, and problem behaviors in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2019, 73, 7301205130p1–7301205130p10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Griffin, Z.A.M.; Boulton, K.A.; Thapa, R.; DeMayo, M.M.; Ambarchi, Z.; Thomas, E.; Pokorski, I.; Hickie, I.B.; Guastella, A.J. Atypical sensory processing features in children with autism, and their relationships with maladaptive behaviors and caregiver strain. Autism Res. 2022, 15, 1120–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ben-Sasson, A.; Zisserman, A. Sensory family accommodation for autistic and sensory overresponsive children: The mediating role of parenting distress tolerance. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2025, 79, 7903205110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gourley, L.; Wind, C.; Henninger, E.M.; Chinitz, S. Sensory processing difficulties, behavioral problems, and parental stress in a clinical population of young children. JCFS 2013, 22, 912–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Kirby, A.V.; Dickie, V.A.; Baranek, G.T. Sensory experiences of children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: In their own words. Autism 2015, 19, 316–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Little, L.M.; Ausderau, K.; Freuler, A.; Sideris, J.; Baranek, G.T. Caregiver strategies to sensory features for children with autism and developmental disabilities. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 905154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bundy, A.; Lane, S.J. Sensory integration: A Jean Ayres theory revisited. In Sensory Integration Theory and Practice, 3rd ed.; Bundy, A., Lane, S.J., Eds.; F.A. Davis Company: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 2–20. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cermak, S.A.; May-Benson, T. Praxis and dyspraxia. In Sensory Integration Theory and Practice, 3rd ed.; Bundy, A., Lane, S.J., Eds.; F.A. Davis Company: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2020; pp. 115–150. [Google Scholar]
  20. Goin-Kochel, R.P.; Mackintosh, V.H.; Myers, B.J. Parental reports on the efficacy of treatments and therapies for their children with autism spectrum disorders. Res. Autism Spectr. Disorder 2009, 3, 528–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Green, V.A.; Pituch, K.A.; Itchon, J.; Choi, A.; O’Reilly, M.; Sigafoos, J. Internet survey of treatments used by parents of children with autism. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2006, 27, 70–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Robertson, C.E.; Baron-Cohen, S. Sensory perception in autism. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2017, 18, 671–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Camino-Alarcón, J.; Robles-Bello, M.A.; Valencia-Naranjo, N.; Sarhani-Robles, A.A. Systematic review of treatment for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: The sensory processing and sensory integration approach. Children 2024, 11, 1222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Schaaf, R.C.; Mailloux, Z.; Ridgway, E.; Berruti, A.S.; Dumont, R.L.; Jones, E.A.; Leiby, B.E.; Sancimino, C.; Yi, M.; Molholm, S. Sensory phenotypes in autism: Making a case for the inclusion of sensory integration functions. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2023, 53, 4759–4771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jurek, L.; Duchier, A.; Gauld, C.; Hénault, L.; Giroudon, C.; Fourneret, P.; Cortese, S.; Nourredine, M. Sensory processing in individuals with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder compared with control populations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2025, 64, 1132–1147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ahn, R.R.; Miller, L.J.; Milberger, S.; McIntosh, D.N. Prevalence of parents’ perceptions of sensory processing disorders among kindergarten children. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2004, 58, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gouze, K.R.; Hopkins, J.; LeBailly, S.A.; Lavigne, J.V. Re-examining the epidemiology of sensory regulation dysfunction and comorbid psychopathology. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2009, 37, 1077–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Jussila, K.; Junttila, M.; Kielinen, M.; Ebeling, H.; Joskitt, L.; Moilanen, I.; Mattila, M.L. Sensory abnormality and quantitative autism traits in children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorder in an epidemiological population. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2020, 50, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carter, A.S.; Ben-Sasson, A.; Briggs-Gowan, M.J. Sensory over-responsivity, psychopathology, and family impairment in school-aged children. JAACAP 2011, 50, 1210–1219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Galiana, A.; Flores-Ripoll, J.M.; Benito-Castellanos, P.J.; Villar-Rodriguez, C.; Vela-Romero, M. Prevalence and severity-based classification of sensory processing issues. An exploratory study with neuropsychological implications. App. Neuropsychol. Child 2022, 11, 850–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kirby, A.V.; Bilder, D.A.; Wiggins, L.D.; Hughes, M.M.; Davis, J.; Hall-Lande, J.A.; Lee, L.C.; McMahon, W.M.; Bakian, A.V. Sensory features in autism: Findings from a large population-based surveillance system. Autism Res. 2022, 15, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hemant, P.; Ferzandi, Z. Ayres sensory integration for children with attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A mixed method study. IJAR 2020, 8, 1034–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Klintwall, L.; Holm, A.; Eriksson, M.; Carlsson, L.H.; Olsson, M.B.; Hedvall, A.; Gillberg, C.; Fernell, E. Sensory abnormalities in autism. A brief report. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2011, 32, 795–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Leekam, S.R.; Nieto, C.; Libby, S.J.; Wing, L.; Gould, J. Describing the sensory abnormalities of children and adults with autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2007, 37, 894–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mulligan, S.; Douglas, S.; Armstrong, C. Characteristics of idiopathic sensory processing disorder in young children. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 2021, 15, 647928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Miller, L.J.; Schoen, S.A.; Mulligan, S.; Sullivan, J. Identification of sensory processing and integration symptom clusters: A preliminary study. Occupational Ther. Int. 2017, 2017, 2876080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Tomchek, S.D.; Dunn, W. Sensory processing in children with and without autism: A comparative study using the Short Sensory Profile. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2007, 61, 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Verma, B.; Madhumita, D.; Sehgal, R. Exploring prevalence of sensory patterns among children with developmental disabilities: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Contemp. Pediatr. 2025, 12, 471–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Demiris, G.; Oliver, D.P.; Washington, K.T. Defining and analyzing the problem. In Behavioral Intervention Research in Hospice and Palliative Care Building an Evidence Base; Demiris, G., Oliver, D.P., Washington, K.T., Eds.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 27–39. [Google Scholar]
  40. Sukhera, J. Narrative reviews: Flexible, rigorous, and practical. J. Grad. Med. Educ. 2022, 14, 414–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Andelin, L.; Reynolds, S.; Schoen, S. Effectiveness of occupational therapy using a sensory integration approach: A multiple-baseline design study. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2021, 75, 7506205030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lecuona, E.; Van Jaarsveld, A.; Raubenheimer, J.; Van Heerden, R. Sensory integration intervention and the development of the premature infant: A controlled trial. S. Afr. Med. J. 2017, 107, 976–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lane, S.J.; Reynolds, S. Sensory over-responsivity as an added dimension in ADHD. Fronti. Integr. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. May-Benson, T.A.; Easterbrooks-Dick, O.; Teasdale, A. Exploring the prognosis: A longitudinal follow-up study of children with sensory processing challenges 8-32 years later. Children 2023, 10, 1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. McQuiddy, V.A.; Ingram, M.; Vines, M.; Teeters, S.; Ramstetter, A.; Strain-Roggs, S. Long-term impact of an occupational therapy intervention for children with challenges in sensory processing and integration. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2024, 78, 7804185060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Miller, L.J.; Anzalone, M.E.; Lane, S.J.; Cermak, S.A.; Osten, E.T. Concept evolution in sensory integration: A proposed nosology for diagnosis. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2007, 61, 135–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Newby, M.J.; Lane, S.J.; Haracz, K.; Tona, J.; Palazzi, K.; Lambkin, D. Relationships between sensory reactivity and occupational performance in children with Paediatric Acute-Onset Neuropsychiatric Syndrome (PANS). Aust. Ooccup. Ther. J. 2025, 72, e12999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Omairi, C.; Mailloux, Z.; Antoniuk, S.A.; Schaaf, R. Occupational therapy using Ayres Sensory Integration®: A randomized controlled trial in Brazil. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2022, 76, 7604205160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Pfeiffer, B.A.; Koenig, K.; Kinnealey, M.; Sheppard, M.; Henderson, L. Effectiveness of sensory integration interventions in children with autism spectrum disorders: A pilot study. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2011, 65, 76–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Schaaf, R.C.; Benevedies, R.; Mailloux, Z.; Faller, P.; Hunt, J.; van Hooydonk, E.; Freeman, R.; Leiby, B.; Sendecki, J.; Kelly, D. An intervention for sensory difficulties in children with autism: A randomized trial. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2014, 447, 1493–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schaaf, R.C.; Ridgway, E.M.; Jones, E.A.; Dumont, R.L.; Foxe, J.; Conly, T.; Sancimino, C.; Misung, Y.; Mailloux, Z.; Hunt, J.M.; et al. A comparative trial of occupational therapy using Ayres Sensory Integration and applied behavior analysis interventions for autistic children. Autism Res. 2025, 10, 2120–2134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Whiting, C.C.; Schoen, S.A.; Schaaf, R.C.; Auld-Wright, K.; McKeon, M.C. Guidelines for occupational therapy using Ayres Sensory Integration® in school-based practice: A validation study. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2025, 79, 7904205190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Brugnaro, B.H.; Pauletti, M.F.; Lima, C.R.G.; Verdério, B.N.; Fonseca-Angulo, R.I.; Romão-Silva, B.; de Campos, A.C.; Rosenbaum, P.; Rocha, N.A.C.F. Relationship between sensory processing patterns and gross motor function of children and adolescents with Down syndrome and typical development: A cross-sectional study. JIDR 2024, 68, 358–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. van Jaarsveld, A.; van Rooyen, F.C.; van Biljon, A.-M.; van Rensburg, I.J.; James, K.; Böning, L.; Haefele, L. Sensory processing, praxis and related social participation of 5–12 year old children with Down Syndrome attending educational facilities in Bloemfontein, South Africa. S. Afr. J. Occup. Ther. 2016, 46, 15–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Fjeldsted, B.; Xue, L. Sensory Processing in Young Children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder. Phys Occup. Ther. Pediatr. 2019, 39, 553–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, R.; Martin, C.D.; Lei, A.L.; Hausknecht, K.A.; Turk, M.; Micov, V.; Kwarteng, F.; Ishiwari, K.; Ourbraim, S.; Want, A.-L.; et al. Prenatal ethanol exposure impairs sensory processing and habituation of visual stimuli, effects normalized by postnatal environmental enrichment. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 2022, 46, 891–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Bröring, T.; Königs, M.; Oostrom, K.J.; Lafeber, H.N.; Brugman, A.; Oosterlaan, J. Sensory processing difficulties in school-age children born very preterm: An exploratory study. Early Hum. Dev. 2018, 117, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Mitchell, A.W.; Moore, E.M.; Roberts, E.J.; Hachtel, K.W.; Brown, M.S. Sensory processing disorder in children ages birth–3 years born prematurely: A systematic review. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2015, 69, 6901220030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Niutanen, U.; Harra, T.; Lano, A.; Metsäranta, M. Systematic review of sensory processing in preterm children reveals abnormal sensory modulation, somatosensory processing and sensory-based motor processing. Acta Pediatr. 2020, 109, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Patil, O.; Kaple, M. Sensory processing differences in individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A narrative review of underlying mechanisms and sensory-based interventions. Cureus 2023, 15, e48020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Dellapiazza, F.; Vernhet, C.; Blanc, N.; Miot, S.; Schmidt, R.; Baghdadli, A. Links between sensory processing, adaptive behaviours, and attention in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A systematic review. Psychiatry Res. 2018, 270, 78–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Donica, D.; Beck, L.; Mumford, K. Exploring the relationship between handwriting legibility and praxis in third and fourth grade students. OJOT 2025, 13, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Sleeman, H.R.G.; Brown, T. An exploratory study of the relationship between typically-developing school-age children’s sensory processing and their activity participation. BJOT 2021, 85, 251–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Schoen, S.A.; Lane, S.J.; Mailloux, Z.; May-Benson, T.; Parham, L.D.; Smith Roley, S.; Schaaf, R.C. A systematic review of Ayres Sensory Integration intervention for children with autism. Autism Res. 2019, 12, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Steinbrenner, J.R.; Hume, K.; Odom, S.L.; Morin, K.L.; Nowell, S.W.; Tomaszewski, B.; Szendrey, S.; McIntyre, N.S.; Yucesoy-Ozkan, S.; Savage, M.N. Evidence-based practices for children, youth, and young adults with autism. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 2021, 51, 4013–4032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kruger, S.; Uys, K.; Van Niekerk, K.; Botha, T. The impact of occupational therapy using Ayres Sensory Integration® on a child with cochlear implants: A case study (Version 1). S. Afr. J. Occup. Ther. 2025, 55, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Koshy, N.; Sugi, S.; Rajendran, K. A study to identify prevalence and effectiveness of sensory integration on toilet skill problems among sensory processing disorder. IJOT 2018, 50, 86–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lucas, C.C.; da Silva Pereira, A.P.; da Silva Almeida, L.; Beaudry-Bellefeuille, I. Assessment of sensory integration in early childhood: A systematic review to identify tools compatible with family-centred approach and daily routines. J. Occup. Ther. Sch. Early 2023, 17, 419–465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lucas, C.C.; da Silva Pereira, A.P.; da Silva Almeida, L.; Beaudry-Bellefeuille, I. Construct validity of the sensory integration infant routines questionnaire (SIIRQ). Early Years 2024, 45, 472–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Dunn, W. Sensory Profile 2 User Manual; Pearson Assessments: San Antonio, TX, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  71. Parham, L.D.; Ecker, C.L.; Kuhaneck, H.; Henry, D.A.; Glennon, T.J. Sensory Processing Measure, Second Edition (SPM-2); Western Psychological Services: Torrance, CA, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  72. Cheng, M.; Boggett-Carsjens, J. Consider sensory processing disorders in the explosive child: Case report and review. Can. Child Adoles. Psychiatry Rev. 2005, 14, 44–48. [Google Scholar]
  73. Critz, C.; Blake, K.; Nogueira, E. Sensory processing challenges in children. JNP 2015, 11, 710–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Lang, M.; du Plessis, E. Sensory processing disorder: Perceptions on the clinical role of advanced psychiatric nurses. Health SA 2019, 24, 1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Walbam, K.M. The relevance of sensory processing disorder to social work practice: An interdisciplinary approach. CASWJ 2014, 31, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wood, J.K. Sensory processing disorder: Implications for primary care nurse practitioners. JNP 2020, 16, 514–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Byrne, M.W. Sensory processing disorder: Any of a nurse practitioner’s business? JAANP 2009, 21, 314–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Heerink, J.S.; Oudega, R.; Hopstaken, R.; Koffijberg, H.; Kusters, R. Clinical decision rules in primary care: Necessary investments for sustainable healthcare. Prim. Health Care Res. Dev. 2023, 24, e34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Rim, S.H.; Hall, I.J.; Massetti, G.M.; Thomas, C.C.; Li, J.; Richardson, L.C. Primary care providers’ intended use of decision aids for prostate-specific antigen testing for prostate cancer screening. J. Cancer Educ. 2019, 34, 666–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Darnal, S.; Panda, S.; Namrata; Chettri, A. Sensory processing, emotional and behavioral challenges in children with Autism Spectrum Disorder and Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder. Int. J. Dev. Disabil. 2023, 71, 703–713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Mikami, M.; Hirota, T.; Takahashi, M.; Adachi, M.; Saito, M.; Koeda1, S.; Yoshida, K.; Sakamoto, Y.; Kato, S.; Nakamura, K.; et al. Atypical sensory processing profiles and their associations with motor problems in preschoolers with developmental coordination disorder. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2021, 52, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Davies, N.; Schiowitz, B.; Rait, G.; Vickerstaff, V.; Sampson, E.J. Decision aids to support decision-making in dementia care: A systematic review. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2019, 31, 1403–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. van Venrooij, L.T.; Rusu, V.; Vermeiren, R.R.J.M.; Koposov, R.A.; Skokauskas, N.; Crone, M.R. Clinical decision support methods for children and youths with mental health disorders in primary care. Fam. Prac. 2022, 39, 1135–1143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Ayres, A.J. Sensory Integration and the Child; Western Psychological Services: Torrance, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  85. Cemali, M.; Pekçetin, S.; Akı, E. The effectiveness of sensory integration interventions on motor and sensory functions in infants with cortical vision impairment and cerebral palsy: A single blind randomized controlled trial. Children 2022, 9, 1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chan, P.L.C.; Poon, M.Y.C.; Bux, V.; Wong, S.K.F.; Chu, A.W.Y.; Louie, F.T.M.; Wang, A.Q.L.; Yang, H.L.C.; Yu, E.L.M.; Fong, S.S. Occupational therapy using an Ayres Sensory integration® approach for school-age children–a randomized controlled trial. World Fed. Occup. Ther. Bull. 2023, 79, 228–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Verbakal, J.Y.; Burvenich, R.; D’hulster, E.; De Rop, L.; Van den Bruel, A.; Anthierens, S.; Coenen, S.; De Sutter, A.; Heytens, S.; Joly, L.; et al. A clinical decision tool including a decision tree, point-of-care testing of CRP, and safety-netting advice to guide antibiotic prescribing in acutely ill children in primary care in Belgium (ARON): A pragmatic, cluster-randomised, controlled trial. Lancet 2025, 406, 1599–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brainsci 15 01184 g001
Figure 1. SI decision guide: grr.
Figure 1. SI decision guide: grr.
Brainsci 15 01184 g001
Table 1. Search terms.
Table 1. Search terms.
Population(“sensory processing” or “sensory integration” or “sensory modulation” or “sensory-based motor”) AND (dysfunction or disorder or challenge or difficult *)
Concept(screening or “early detection” or “early diagnosis” or “early identification”) (referral or “referral process” or “referral pathway” or “decision guide”)
Context(“primary care provider” or “primary health care provider” or “primary healthcare provider”)(“occupational therapy” or “occupational therapist” or “occupational therapists” or ot)
* this symbol indicates the term “difficult” could be present in form (e.g., difficulties, difficulty, etc.).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Lane, S.J.; Schoen, S.A.; Schaaf, R.; Bundy, A.; Mailloux, Z.; Roley, S.S.; May-Benson, T.A.; Parham, L.D. Supporting Clinical Identification of Children with Sensory Integration Challenges: A Decision Guide for Primary Care Providers. Brain Sci. 2025, 15, 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15111184

AMA Style

Lane SJ, Schoen SA, Schaaf R, Bundy A, Mailloux Z, Roley SS, May-Benson TA, Parham LD. Supporting Clinical Identification of Children with Sensory Integration Challenges: A Decision Guide for Primary Care Providers. Brain Sciences. 2025; 15(11):1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15111184

Chicago/Turabian Style

Lane, Shelly J., Sarah A. Schoen, Roseann Schaaf, Anita Bundy, Zoe Mailloux, Susanne Smith Roley, Teresa A. May-Benson, and L. Diane Parham. 2025. "Supporting Clinical Identification of Children with Sensory Integration Challenges: A Decision Guide for Primary Care Providers" Brain Sciences 15, no. 11: 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15111184

APA Style

Lane, S. J., Schoen, S. A., Schaaf, R., Bundy, A., Mailloux, Z., Roley, S. S., May-Benson, T. A., & Parham, L. D. (2025). Supporting Clinical Identification of Children with Sensory Integration Challenges: A Decision Guide for Primary Care Providers. Brain Sciences, 15(11), 1184. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci15111184

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop