Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Scoping review reveals inconsistent reporting and consultative roles for community advisory boards in autism research, highlighting conceptual and methodological gaps.
Community engagement is increasingly promoted as a good practice in autism research, yet little is known about how Community Advisory Boards are used. This scoping review mapped the extent and nature of empirical literature on Community Advisory Boards in autism research. Five databases were searched, supplemented by reference list searching. Twenty-two studies met inclusion criteria. Most were published recently, conducted in the United States, and used mixed methods. Community Advisory Boards were rarely formally defined and were typically described functionally rather than conceptually. Most operated in consultative roles, with inconsistent reporting of recruitment, compensation, onboarding, communication, and influence on decision-making. Findings suggest that use of Community Advisory Boards in autism research is expanding but remains conceptually and methodologically underdeveloped.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rensburg et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: