Weighted Blankets and Sleep in Autistic Children—A Randomized Controlled Trial

Full text


Weighted Blankets and Sleep in Autistic


A Randomized Controlled Trial

WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Children with autism sleep poorly compared with their peers. Sensory integration, including use of weighted blankets, is proposed as a means to reduce arousal and stress. There is, however, no evidence that weighted blankets can improve sleep for these children.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: This is thefirst robust study to evaluate the impact of weighted blankets and show that they do not improve sleep parameters in children with autism spectrum disorder.


OBJECTIVE:To assess the effectiveness of a weighted-blanket interven-tion in treating severe sleep problems in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

METHODS: This phase III trial was a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover design. Participants were aged between 5 years and 16 years 10 months, with a confirmed ASD diagnosis and severe sleep problems, refractory to community-based interventions. The interventions were ei-ther a commercially available weighted blanket or oei-therwise identical usual weight blanket (control), introduced at bedtime; each was used for a 2-week period before crossover to the other blanket. Primary out-come was total sleep time (TST) recorded by actigraphy over each 2-week period. Secondary outcomes included actigraphically recorded sleep-onset latency, sleep efficiency, assessments of child behavior, family functioning, and adverse events. Sleep was also measured by using parent-report diaries.

RESULTS: Seventy-three children were randomized and analysis conducted on 67 children who completed the study. Using objective measures, the weighted blanket, compared with the control blanket, did not increase TST as measured by actigraphy and adjusted for baseline TST. There were no group differences in any other objective or subjective measure of sleep, including behavioral outcomes. On subjective preference measures, parents and children favored the weighted blanket.

CONCLUSIONS: The use of a weighted blanket did not help children with ASD sleep for a longer period of time, fall asleep significantly faster, or wake less often. However, the weighted blanket was favored by children and parents, and blankets were well tolerated over this period.Pediatrics2014;134:298–306

AUTHORS:Paul Gringras, MBChB, MRCP, MsC,aDido Green,

DipCOT, MSc, PhD,bBarry Wright, MBBS, MD, FRCPsych,c

Carla Rush, BSc,aMasako Sparrowhawk,dKaren Pratt,a

Victoria Allgar, PhD, CStat, CSci,dNaomi Hooke,cDanielle

Moore,cZenobia Zaiwalla,eand Luci Wiggs, DPhil,


aChildrens Sleep Medicine, Evelina London Childrens Hospital,

St Thomas’Hospital, London, United Kingdom;bCentre for

Rehabilitation anddDepartment of Psychology, Oxford Brookes

University, Oxford, United Kingdom;cLime Trees Child and Family

Unit, York, England; andeDepartment of Clinical Neurophysiology,

John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom


autism spectrum disorder, severe sleep problems, weighted blankets, total sleep time, children


ABC—Aberrant Behavior Checklist ASD—autism spectrum disorder

CONSORT—Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials CROS—crossover analysis

CSDI—Composite Sleep Disturbance Index SCQ—Social Communication Questionnaire SOL—sleep onset latency

SSPCQ—Short Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire TST—total sleep time

Professor Gringras was involved in the design of the study, the funding application, development of the protocol, and recruitment of patients as a local principal investigator; was co–chief investigator for the trial and a member of the trial management group; and cowrote the article; Dr Wiggs contributed to the design of the study, the funding application, and development of the protocol; advised on the use of actigraphy and patient-reported outcomes; was principal investigator and co–chief investigator for the trial; was a member of the trial management group; and helped write the article; Ms Rush coordinated the trial, recruited patients, scored actigraphy, helped write the article, and was a member of the trial management group; Ms Sparrowhawk and Ms Pratt recruited patients, helped write the article, and were members of the trial management group; Dr Wright helped recruit patients and coordinate the trial, helped write the article, was co–principal investigator for the trial, and was a member of the trial management group; Ms Hooke and Ms Moore helped recruit patients, respond to family queries, and collect and record data; Dr Allgar helped with the statistical analysis plan, analyzing data, and writing the article; Dr Green contributed to the design of the study, the funding application and ethical submission, advised on the use of sensory questionnaires and patient reported outcomes, helped write the article, and was a member of the trial management group; and Dr Zaiwalla helped with the initial study design and recruitment as lead clinician from the Oxford Group and helped write the article.


Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) are more likely to have disturbed sleep than typically developing children, with a prevalence of sleep disturbance in children with ASD between 40% and 80%.1 The most commonly reported sleep disturbances are increased sleep latency (time to fall asleep) and frequent night waking, which result in reduced sleep duration.2 The etiology of sleep disorders in ASD is poorly understood.3 Sleeping difficulties are frequently chronic, resulting in additional learning and behavior problems4 and affecting the whole family’s well-being. Behavioral interventions work with some children, but not all.5 Pharmacological inter-ventions, with exogenous melatonin, have shown potential for reducing sleep latency by∼30 minutes but have a less significant impact on total sleep time (TST).6,7

Weighted blankets are often recommen-ded by professionalswho work with young people with ASD to assist with calming and relaxation, as well as to assist with sleeping.8,9 The theory underlying the reasons for using weighted blankets and other weighted items for calming pur-poses is based on sensory integration.10It is hypothesized that the deep pressure and more consistent sensory input pro-vided by weighted items reduces the body’s physiologic level of arousal and stress, which might improve sleep. Al-though weighted blankets potentially of-fer a relatively cheap, nonpharmacologic intervention, research on their efficacy in children with ASD is lacking. This trial was therefore conceived to establish whether this novel intervention could in-crease TST and improve other sleep parameters in children with ASD.


Study Design and Oversight

This randomized, multicenter, controlled, crossover phase III trial was undertaken in 3 sites in England. The study was ap-proved through the UK Integrated Re-search Application System and the

review board of each participating center and was conducted in accordance with the International Conference on Harmo-nization Good Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from the legal guardians of the children. Informed written assent was also obtained from competent study participants between 8 and 16 years of age.

Study Population

Children were eligible to participate if they were aged between 5 years and 16 years 10 months and had an ASD di-agnosis and if their parents reported a sleep problem (as defined later), for at least the previous 5 months. The di-agnosis of ASD was reached if clinical records from the local multidisciplinary team agreed to an unequivocal ASD diagnosis including autism, Asperger syndrome, or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. In addition to consideration of school reports and direct observations, these teams used a range of standardized diagnostic instruments reflecting usual ASD diagnostic practice in the United Kingdom.11,12 Sleep problems were characterized as failing to fall asleep within 1 hour of “lights off” on 3 of 5 nights and/or achieving ,7 hours of continuous sleep on 3 of 5 nights. Chil-dren were not included if they were known to suffer from obstructive sleep apnea, night terrors, or other disorders likely to have an impact on sleep. Two amendments were made to the eligibility criteria after trial commencement: the age for inclusion was raised by 1 year to 16 years 10 months, and patients on a stable dose of permitted medication for .6 months were included (see protocol). These changes were to maximize re-cruitment without affecting trialfidelity.


A number of commercially available weighted blankets in common use that

adhered to the original guidance on sen-sory interventions as proposed by Ayres10 (providing constant proprioceptive stim-ulation distributed across the body) were considered by the senior occupational therapist of this study (DG). A specific weighted blanket used in the United States and United Kingdom was chosen. The weighted blanket weighed 2.25 kg (small) or 4.5 kg (large) and was heavy without being thick (and therefore too warm) through the use of 3-mm steel shot pellets embedded evenly throughout the blanket. Although we were aware that blinding child and parent to the different weights of study and control blanket was impossible, we matched the control blankets by size, color, and texture of the material. Some children with ASD during pilot stages were aware of the subtle texture of the weighted blankets’ steel shot, and so we commissioned the sup-pliers to incorporate lightweight plastic beads identical in size to the steel shot into the bespoke control blankets.

Two sizes of blankets (small: 147376 cm; large: 1523152 cm) according to the size of child were used, consistent with recommendations by manufactures and therapists.


After screening and consent, eligible participants began a baseline adapta-tion and monitoring period of 7 to 21 days.


visits took place in clinic, within desig-nated schools, or whenever possible, the patients’homes.


Remote randomization was carried out by Kings Clinical Trial Unit by using block randomization with random variable block lengths of 2 and 4, and stratified by center. Randomization requests were generated by the researchers, who then dispensed the allocated treatments. Because of the nature of the treatment, researchers were unblinded; however, all trial investigators (PG, DG, LW, BW) and the statistician (VA) were blind to treatment allocation throughout the trial and analysis.

Measuring Sleep

The trial design included both objective (actigraphy) and subjective (parent-completed diary) measures of sleep as recommended by Sadeh.13 There are benefits with each approach and also reasons the results may not be concor-dant14,15; for example, sleep diaries would not detect periods when the child was awake but not disturb the household (a particular concern for determining sleep onset latency [SOL]), and actigraphy may interpret restless sleep as being awake.

The actigraph (Micro Mini Motionlog-ger, Ambulatory Monitoring, Ardsley, NY), an accelerometer, was worn on the nondominant wrist, and movement was monitored continuously and stored within the unit. Subsequent analysis of frequency and pattern of movement by means of validated algorithms permits detection of basic sleep–wake pat-terns.13 Movements were scored in 1-minute epochs; all epochs that are scored above a preset threshold using an algorithm by Sadeh13are scored as “awake”and those that are below this threshold are scored as“sleep.”

Study Outcomes

Various assessments of sleep parame-ters, sensory profiles, daytime behaviors,

and perceptions of blanket use were conducted at different time points (Table 1).

The primary outcome was TST, measured by actigraphy. A minimum of 5 of 7 nights’ actigraphy data (or$71% if.7 nights were captured) was required at baseline and during each blanket phase, and averages were calculated at each time point. Children not meeting this re-quirement were excluded from the data analyses of the main research questions.

Secondary sleep outcomes included TST measured by parental diary; SOL mea-sured by diaries and actigraphy; and sleep efficiency (the proportion of time spent in bed asleep) measured by actigraphy.

Three questionnaires were completed at baseline and at the end of both in-tervention periods: the Composite Sleep Disturbance Index (CSDI; frequency and duration of sleep problems),16–18 the Aberrant Behavior Checklist (ABC; to as-sess behavioral problems),19,20 and the Sensory Behavior Questionnaire (SBQ; sensory stimuli response profile).21 Three questionnaires were only com-pleted at baseline: the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire (a parent-report validated sleep screening instrument), the Social Communication Questionnaire (SCQ; a screening instrument for ASD),22 and the Short Sensory Profile Caregiver Questionnaire (SSPCQ; a questionnaire to establish a profile of children’s sen-sory responses).23 The trialowchart can be seen in Fig 1.

Children and parents also completed subjective ratings of sleep quality and acceptability of the blanket. The sleep diary contained a section forparents to estimate the percentage ofthe night the blanket was in contact with the child’s body.

The frequency and severity of adverse events were monitored carefully through a 24-hour telephone number and weekly parent reviews (face-to-face or telephone).

Statistical Considerations

The “intention to treat” principle was used throughout, with analyses un-dertaken by using SPSS (version 20; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).24 Missing data for questionnaire responses were prorated if ,10% was missing, and data were excluded otherwise.

The TST primary outcome (actigraphy) was analyzed by taking the average TST over baseline and each of the 2-week intervention periods. It was powered at 80% with a 5% significance level to detect a change from baseline of 40 minutes between the study blanket and placebo blanket periods using a com-mon SD of 1.7.24,25 Allowing for 20% missing data based on pilot work, 63 in total were required.

The actigraphy data and sleep diary outcomes were analyzed by taking the average TST (actigraphy and diary) and average SOL (actigraphy and diary) over the baseline and each of the 2-week intervention periods. At baseline a

TABLE 1 Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population

Baseline Characteristic Weighted Blanket First (n= 32) Control Blanket First (n= 35)

Male,n(%) 28 (88%) 26 (74%)

Age (y), mean (SD) 8.7 (3.3) 9.9 (2.8)

SCQ score, mean (SD) 19.7 (5.9), 11–33 20.3 (6.0), 6–32

ASD diagnosis,n(%)

Autism 8 (25) 13 (37)

Asperger syndrome 16 (50) 17 (49)

ASD 8 (25) 5 (14)

Sensory profile (Dunn23

) 108.62 (21.6) 117.60 (22.7)

Mean (SD), range 73–154 65–186

Sleep disorder,n(%)

Delayed sleep onset 29 (91) 31 (86)

Poor sleep maintenance 17 (53) 19 (54)


descriptive summary was undertaken between the randomization groups, with mean (SD) or median (interquartile range) for continuous data andn(%) for categorical data. No statistical tests were used to compare baseline data (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials [CONSORT]; http://www.consort-statement.org/downloads).

The primary analysis was to compare TSTwhen using weighted blanket versus control blanket (actigraphy). To rule out a period effect, a crossover analysis (CROS) was undertaken. The sum of the TST values was calculated for the time period when using weighted blanket and when using control blanket for each subject. This was compared across the sequence groups by means of an in-dependentt test. Where the test was not significant, this indicated that there was no evidence of a period effect.26

The second stage of CROS is to test the difference between the weighted blanket and the control blanket. The differences in the TST were calculated between thefirst period and the second period, and this difference was compared across the se-quence groups by means of an in-dependentttest. This method of analysis adjusts for the period effect and so reduces the effect of any period difference.

This was then followed by the more con-ventional analysis of a CROS by using a pairedttest to compare TSTwhen using weighted blanket versus TST when using control blanket, which was irrespective of starting group. The existence of cross-over effects must be ruled out before this method is valid (see http://www.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3345345).

The same statistical procedures were followed for secondary sleep data. For data from the SPBQ, ABC, and CSDI,

a CROS was again undertaken, by using Mann-Whitney tests to examine the crossover effect. A Wilcoxon paired test was then used to compare the study blanket and control blanket scores, irrespective of starting group where the existence of crossover effects was ruled out. Exploratory analysis of sensory influences on TST in response to blankets was undertaken by using repeated-measures analysis of variance.23

All analyses were performed on SPSS (version 20; IBM SPSS Statistics, IBM Corporation).P,.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance.


Seventy-three children were recruited and followed up between August 2011 and October 2012.

The CONSORT diagram in Fig 2 shows the screening, randomization, and follow-up



of the patients. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (see Table 1).

Seventy-three patients were random-ized, and 6 were subsequently excluded. Four could not tolerate or declined to use the weighted blanket, 1 chose to with-draw to attend an alternative clinic, and 1 had an unrelated illness and could not continue. The baseline characteristics of the 2 groups can be seen in Table 1.

It is interesting to note that despite agreed ASD diagnoses from multidisci-plinary teams, 13 (19%) were not above the recommended cutoff of 15 on the SCQ, but of these 11 were above the cutoff

of 11 discussed in the review by Norris and Lecavalier27 as the cutoff with maximum sensitivity and specificity.

Sleep Outcomes


The baseline average TSTwas 453.3 (60.0) minutes, average SOL (latency) was 77.1 (44.8) minutes, average sleep efficiency was 72.6% (8.7), average duration of wake after sleep onset was 85.4 (45.1) minutes, and the average number of night wakenings was 21.2 (8.1). There were no differences at baseline between the 2 randomization groups (see Table 2).

TST (Primary Outcome)

There was no evidence of a period effect for TST (t52 = 0.996, P = .324). When

testing for differences between the weighted blanket and control blanket by looking at the within subject differences in the outcome by sequence groups, there was no significant difference (t52=

0.893, P = .376). For sequence group weighted-control, the TST was only slightly longer when using control com-pared with weighted (mean difference [weighted-control] =–0.7 [31.2]), and for sequence group control-weighted, the TST was slightly longer when using



control compared with weighted (mean difference [control-weighted] = 7.7 [37.8]). This was confirmed by a paired

t test comparing study blanket and control blanket, irrespective of starting group (t53= 0.896,P= .374). The mean

difference was –4.2 (34.5, 95% confi -dence interval –13.6 to 5.2). Hence, overall there was no significant differ-ence in TST between the study blanket and control blanket (see Table 3 for details of primary and secondary sleep outcomes).

Sleep Latency, Sleep Efficiency, and Wake After Sleep Onset (Secondary Outcomes)

Similarly there was no evidence of a period effect, within subject differences in the outcome by sequence groups, or overall significant differences between study and control blanket for sleep la-tency, sleep efficiency, or measures of wake after sleep onset (see Table 3 for details).

Sleep Diary

The baseline average TST was 531.8 (109.6) min, average SOL (latency) was 70.0 (47.6), the average time of the night wake was 16.7 (12.8), and the average proportion of nights with at least 1 wake was 0.30 (0.34). There were no differences

at baseline between the 2 randomization groups (see Table 2).

In keeping with the actigraphy, there was no evidence of a period effect, within-subject differences in the out-come by sequence groups, or overall significant differences between study and control blanket for TST, sleep la-tency, measures of wake after sleep onset, or parents’ perception of per-centage the blanket was worn each night (see Table 3).

Questionnaire Outcomes

Table 4 summarizes the questionnaire outcomes. The CSDI showed a clinically small (0.74) but statistically significant (P = .010) lower score (better sleep) during the control blanket period. There were no significant differences for the total scores or subscales be-tween the weighted blanket and the control blanket for the SPBQ or ABC.

Table 5 summarizes results of the child and parent scales used to assess per-ceived sleep quality and blanket accept-ability. More children chose the “really liked”category for the weighted blanket than control blanket (48% vs 31%). More parents felt that sleep was“very much/ much improved”(51% vs 16%) and their child calmer (35% vs 14%) with the weighted blanket than control blanket.

Tolerability Outcomes

No serious adverse events were repor-ted, and other than a 2-day skin rash on 1 child that may have been related to the blanket, all others were unrelated illness (eg, colds, fever, chicken pox, broken bone in hand). No formal statistical tests were undertaken, and the results for each group appeared similar.

Exploratory Analyses

Results of exploratory analyses are provided in Table 6. The treatment ef-fect was not modified by age, weight, baseline degree of sleep problems, SCQ autism severity score, or initial sen-sory profile on the SSPCQ.


In this randomized controlled CROS, a weighted blanket intervention was found to be no more effective than a control (usual weight) blanket at improving TST or any other commonly measured pa-rameter of sleep quantity or quality. This was regardless of whether parameters were measured objectively by actigraphy or subjectively with parent diaries. There were no adverse events. Interestingly, children were more likely to like the weighted blanket and parents more likely to rate their child’s sleep as better, despite no actigraphy or diary evidence

TABLE 2 Comparison of Trial Groups on Primary and Secondary Sleep Variables at Baseline

Baseline Mean (SD),n

Weighted Mean (SD),n

Control Blanket Mean (SD),n

Mean Difference (SD) (Weighted-Control),n

tdf,P(Weighted Versus

Control) Comparison


TST, min 452.8 (59.7), 67 454.4 (62.4), 65 457.7 (64.6), 66 24.6 (33.3), 64 t63= 1.103, .274

SOL, min 76.5 (46.1), 60 74.3 (48.7), 59 69.9 (43.8), 59 1.4 (26.2), 57 t56= 0.390, .698

Sleep efficiency,a

% 72.7 (8.8), 60 73.4 (9.3), 59 74.2 (7.8), 59 20.2 (4.5), 57 t56= 0.321, .749

No. of night wakenings 20.9 (8.0), 67 19.1 (6.7), 65 19.5 (6.9), 66 20.3 (3.1), 64 t63= 0.892, .376

Time awake after sleep onset 85.7 (44.7), 67 84.1 (43.1), 65 83.8 (41.4), 66 20.1 (26.5), 64 t63= 0.043, .966

Sleep diary

% of time blanket in place — 75.6 (25.4), 67 73.7 (25.7), 67 1.9 (18.4), 67 t63= 0.813, .419

TST 531.8 (109.6), 67 528.9 (127.1), 67 513.0 (154.1), 67 15.9 (93.0), 67 t66= 1.398, .167

SOL, min 69.9 (47.6), 67 55.6 (37.8), 67 57.2 (42.8), 67 21.6 (20.9), 67 t66= 0.631, .531

Proportion of nights with$1 wake 0.3 (0.3), 66 0.2 (0.3), 67 0.2 (0.3), 67 20.01 (0.21), 67 t66= 0.460, .647

Average time awake 16.7 (12.9), 66 15.6 (13.4), 67 14.6 (13.3), 67 001 (11.7), 67 t66= 0.013, .989

aCalculated as number of minutes spent sleeping in bed/total number of minutes spent in bed3100.


to support this. Parents also rated their child’s behavior as calmer when using the weighted blanket. It is possible these findings are related to a perception of improved sleep brought about by im-proved bedtime behavior, positive attri-butions about the intervention that affected perceptions or parent child interactions, or that parents were influenced by a desire to please the study team or reinforce widely held beliefs about weighted blankets. It is also possible that parents were aware of some qualitative change in the child that our measures did not capture.

The strengths of our design include (1) the first randomized study specifically designed and powered to assess the impact of a weighted blanket on TST in children with ASD, (2) the purposive in-clusion of a“placebo”control, (3) the use

of an objective assessment of sleep, (4) the inclusion of secondary out-comes that included sensory and other daytime behaviors, and (5)fi nd-ings generalizable to children diag-nosed in community settings with ASD and poor sleep.

Limitations include the following: (1) the weighted blankets were obviously heavier than the control blankets, making true masking of weighted versus control impossible. This made a placebo response more likely and was the main reason we decided that subjective out-comes such as sleep diaries would not suffice, choosing instead actigraphy as the most practical objective measure. The run-in period helped maximize the number of children who tolerated actigraphy, and, in contrast to other studies using the same methodology,

this technique provided robust objective primary outcome data across.95% of the children recruited. (2) The parental estimation of percentage of blanket contact is likely to be extremely sub-jective, and we acknowledge this, but we believe it was important to have some estimate of “adherence and concor-dance”to treatment. If this study were to be repeated, then concurrent in-frared video would enable a more pre-cise analysis. (3) Although the study was powered to detect a 40-minute dif-ference in TST with.63 patients, only 54 subjects were available for the weighted blanket–control comparison. The mean differences of ∼4 minutes, however, were not significant, and an additional 9 patients would not have altered the study outcome. (4) This was a pragmatic trial, thus we did not

TABLE 3 Sleep Outcomes

Baseline Mean (SD),n

Weighted Blanket Mean (SD),n

Control Blanket Mean (SD),n

Mean Difference (SD) Between Weighted and

Control Blanket,n

tdf,Pof Weighted Versus

Control Comparison


TST, min 453.3 (60.0), 62 452.8 (65.0), 57 455.4 (65.8), 62 24.2 (34.5), 54 t53= 0.896, .374

SOL, min 77.1 (44.8), 55 71.4 (48.2), 54 70.6 (44.3), 57 2.1 (26.8), 50 t49= 0.560, .578

Sleep efficiency,a

% 72.6 (8.7), 55 73.6 (9.5), 54 74.2 (8.0), 57 20.3 (4.), 50 t49= 0.422, .675

No. of night wakenings 21.2 (8.1), 62 19.5 (7.0), 57 19.5 (6.8), 62 20.2 (3.2), 54 t53= 0.466, .643

Time awake after sleep onset 85.4 (45.1), 62 84.6 (42.6), 57 84.5 (41.5), 62 22.5 (25.6), 54 t53= 0.706, .483

Sleep diary

% of time blanket in place — 75.6 (25.4), 67 73.7 (25.7), 67 1.9 (18.4), 67 t66= 0.813, .419

TST, min 531.8 (109.6), 67 528.9 (127.1), 67 513.0 (154.1), 67 15.9 (93.0), 67 t66= 1.398, .167

SOL, min 69.9 (47.6), 67 55.6 (37.8), 67 57.2 (42.8), 67 21.6 (20.9), 67 t66= 0.631, .531

Proportion of nights with$1 wake 0.3 (0.3), 66 0.2 (0.3), 67 0.2 (0.3), 67 20.01 (0.21), 67 t66= 0.460, .647

Average time awake 16.7 (12.9), 66 15.6 (13.4), 67 14.6 (13.3), 67 0.01 (11.67), 67 t66= 0.013, .989

aCalculated as number of minutes spent sleeping in bed/total number of minutes spent in bed3100.

TABLE 4 Questionnaire Outcomes

Baseline Mean (SD),n

Weighted Blanket Mean (SD),n

Control Blanket Mean (SD),n

Mean Difference (SD) Between Blanket (Weighted-Control)

Wilcoxon TestP(Weighted Versus Control) Comparison

CSDI scale 0–18 12.2 (2.1), 62 10.8 (2.3), 58 11.4 (2.0), 62 20.74 (2.3), 58 .010


Total score 58.4 (26.3), 65 47.6 (25.5), 67 48.4 (25.2), 64 22.3 (12.3), 64 .191

Irritability, agitation, crying (scale 0–45) 16.0 (9.6), 67 13.3 (8.6), 67 14.3 (10.2), 67 20.9 (4.7), 67 .173 Lethargy, social withdrawal (scale 0–48) 11.0 (6.8), 66 8.1 (6.6), 67 8.7 (6.8), 65 20.7 (3.2), 65 .087

Stereotypic behavior (scale 0–21) 5.3 (4.7), 66 4.4 (4.0), 67 4.6 (4.5), 67 20.2 (2.1), 67 .368

Hyperactivity, noncompliance (scale 0–48) 22.3 (10.3), 67 18.4 (9.2), 67 19.1 (9.5), 66 21.0 (5.4), 66 .159

Inappropriate speech (scale 0–12) 4.0 (2.8), 67 3.3 (3.1), 67 3.4 (3.0), 67 20.1 (1.4), 67 .882


Frequency 82.2 (21.3), 64 77.3 (21.3), 65 78.6 (22.7), 65 21.7 (10.7), 64 .186

Impact 66.5 (22.6), 64 61.0 (21.5), 66 64.1 (24.6), 64 23.3 (12.2), 64 .090


exclude children who were on stable medications and constant doses. It is possible that some of these medications could have altered sleep parameters. However, the randomized crossover de-sign means any effect would be present during both arms. Baseline data show that no child was on medication that was “normalizing”sleep, and all subjects had sufficiently poor TSTs to leave room for improvement.

Weighted blankets are widely available commercially, and anecdotal reports promote their use in children with ASD. The blankets will cost families in ex-cess of £100/115EU/$150 and cannot be returned to manufacturers if they are not effective. Our findings pro-vide valuable epro-vidence that although weighted blankets in children with ASD are safe and well perceived by child and parent alike, there is no

measurable evidence they are bene-ficial for children’s sleep.


The Snuggledown Group acknowledges the support from our funders, Research Autism, the Waterloo Foundation, and the Baily Thomas Charitable Foundation. The group also expresses its gratitude to the children and families who participated in this study and the schools that kindly hosted interviews: Milestone School, Hawkedown Primary School, Alexandra Infant School, and Sonning Primary School. Finally, thank you to Rachael Fal-lows forconcept planning and Dr Sri Gada for his help with recruitment of families.

This study was supported by the United Kingdom Clinical Research Collabora-tion-registered King’s Clinical Trials Unit at King’s Health Partners, which is in part funded by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and

TABLE 5 Child and Parent Opinions

Questions Weighted Blanket Control Blanket Wilcoxon Signed-Rank

Test (TS,n,P)

n % n %

Child’s quality of sleep: Which best describes how you have felt about your sleep over the past 2 weeks?

Smiley face 28 56 17 35 1.746, 44, 0.081

Neutral face 15 30 23 47

Unhappy face 7 14 9 18

Children’s blanket scale: Which best describes how you have felt about the blue blanket you have been using over the past 2 weeks?

Really liked the blanket 25 48 16 31 1.60, 48, .110

Blanket was just OK 19 37 20 39

Really disliked the blanket 8 15 15 29

Parent’s blanket scale: Compared with before the trial when child was not using any special sensory blanket, my child’s sleep is:

Very much improved 10 15 1 1 4.763, 67,,.001

Much improved 24 36 10 15

Minimally improved 21 31 16 24

No change 9 13 33 49

Minimally worse 2 3 4 6

Much worse 1 1 3 4

Very much worse 0 0 0 0

Parent’s blanket scale: Compared with before the trial when my child was not using any special sensory blanket, if my child woke at night, he or she seemed:

More agitated (screaming, distressed, scared) 0 0 3 5 2.089, 65, .037

No different from usual 29 44 41 62

Calmer (happier and more content) 23 35 9 14

Not applicable as so few awakenings 14 21 13 20

TS, test statistic.

TABLE 6 Results of Exploratory Analyses

Weighted Blanket (TST)

Control Blanket (TST)

Differences Between Groups

Mean (SD)n Mean (SD)n

SCQ threshold

SCQ,15 448.6 (53.2) 7 468.3 (55.4) 6

F1= 1.551,P= .218

SCQ$15 465.7 (58.3) 25 439.4 (60.8) 29

SCQ,11 431.8 (76.3) 4 445.0 (73.5) 2

F1= 0.423,P= .518

SCQ$11 466.3 (56.2) 28 444.4 (60.6) 33

SSPCQ threshold

Typical — 396.0 (—) 1

F1= 1.205,P= .277

Probable 458.3 (64.0) 3 426.3 (74) 3


King’s College London and the NIHR Evalua-tion, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre.

To access the full trial protocol, please go to: http://researchautism.net/pages/

research_autism_projects_studies/ research_autism_project_028


1. Richdale AL. Sleep problems in autism: prevalence, cause, and intervention. Dev

Med Child Neurol. 1999;41(1):60–66

2. Dickerson Mayes S, Calhoun SL. Variables related to sleep problems in children with autism. Res Autism Spectr Disord. 2009;3 (4):931–941

3. Richdale AL, Schreck KA. Sleep problems in autism spectrum disorders: prevalence, nature, & possible biopsychosocial aetiol-ogies.Sleep Med Rev. 2009;13(6):403–411 4. Hill CM, Hogan AM, Karmiloff-Smith A. To

sleep, perchance to enrich learning?Arch

Dis Child. 2007;92(7):637–643

5. Weiskop S, Richdale A, Matthews J. Behav-ioural treatment to reduce sleep problems in children with autism or fragile X syndrome.

Dev Med Child Neurol. 2005;47(2):94–104

6. Wright B, Sims D, Smart S, et al. Melatonin versus placebo in children with autism spectrum conditions and severe sleep prob-lems not amenable to behaviour manage-ment strategies: a randomised controlled trial.J Autism Dev Disord. 2011;41(2):175–184 7. Gringras P, Gamble C, Jones AP, et al; MENDS Study Group. Melatonin for sleep problems in children with neurodevelopmental dis-orders: randomised double masked placebo controlled trial.BMJ. 2012;345:e6664

8. Olson LJ, Moulton HJ. Use of weighted vests in pediatric occupational therapy practice.

Phys Occup Ther Pediatr. 2004;24(3):45–60

9. Smith Roley S, Blanche EI, Schaaf R. Un-derstanding the Nature of Sensory

In-tegration With Diverse Populations. San

Antonio, TX: Pro-Ed; 2001

10. Ayres AJ. Sensory Integration and Learning Disorders. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psy-chological Services; 1972

11. Lord C, Rutter M, Goode S, et al. Autism diagnostic observation schedule: a stan-dardized observation of communicative and social behavior.J Autism Dev Disord. 1989;19(2):185–212

12. Lord C, Rutter M, Le Couteur A. Autism Di-agnostic Interview—Revised: a revised version of a diagnostic interview for care-givers of individuals with possible perva-sive developmental disorders.J Autism Dev

Disord. 1994;24(5):659–685

13. Sadeh A. The role and validity of actigraphy in sleep medicine: an update. Sleep Med Rev. 2011;15(4):259–267

14. Phillips L, Appleton RE. Systematic review of melatonin treatment in children with neu-rodevelopmental disabilities and sleep im-pairment. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2004;46 (11):771–775

15. Rossignol DA, Frye RE. Melatonin in autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Dev Med Child Neurol. 2011;53(9):783–792

16. Quine L.Helping Parents to Manage Children’s Sleep Disturbance. An Intervention Trial Using

Health Professionals. London, UK: HMSO; 1992

17. Quine L. Sleep problems in children with mental handicap.J Ment Defic Res. 1991;35 (pt 4):269–290

18. Richman N, Graham PJ. A behaviour screen-ing questionnaire for use with three-year-old children. Preliminary findings. J Child

Psy-chol Psychiatry. 1971;12:5–33

19. Aman MG, Singh NN. Aberrant Behavior

Checklist Manual. New York, NY: Slosson

Educational Publications; 1986

20. Aman MG, Singh NN. Aberrant Behavior

Checklist—Community Supplementary

Man-ual. New York, NY: Slosson Educational Pub-lications; 1994

21. Green D.Sensory Behaviour Questionnaire [unpublished]. London, UK: Guy’s & St Thomas’NHS Foundation Trust; 2009 22. Rutter M, Bailey A, Lord C.Social

Commu-nication Questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA:

Western Psychological Services; 2003

23. Dunn G. The problem of measurement er-ror in modelling the effect of compliance in a randomized trial.Stat Med. 1999;18(21): 2863–2877

24. Jan JE, Espezel H, Appleton RE. The treat-ment of sleep disorders with melatonin.

Dev Med Child Neurol. 1994;36(2):97–107

25. O’Callaghan FJ, Clarke AA, Hancock E, Hunt A, Osborne JP. Use of melatonin to treat sleep disorders in tuberous sclerosis.Dev

Med Child Neurol. 1999;41(2):123–126

26. Senn S. Cross-Over Trials in Clinical Re-search. 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: Wiley; 2002

27. Norris M, Lecavalier L. Screening accuracy of level 2 autism spectrum disorder rating scales. A review of selected instruments.

Autism. 2010;14(4):263–284

(Continued fromfirst page)

This trial has been registered with the ISRCTN Register (http://isrctn.org) (identifier ISRCTN05534585).



Accepted for publication Apr 30, 2014

Address correspondence to Paul Gringras, MBChB, MRCP, MsC, Evelina Children’s Hospital, St Thomas’Hospital, Lambeth Palace Rd, London, SE1 7EH, United Kingdom. E-mail: paul.gringras@gstt.nhs.uk

PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).

Copyright © 2014 by the American Academy of Pediatrics

FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE:The authors have indicated they have nofinancial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

FUNDING:Supported by Research Autism, the Waterloo Foundation, and the Baily Thomas Charitable Foundation.


DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-4285 originally published online July 14, 2014;




Pratt, Victoria Allgar, Naomi Hooke, Danielle Moore, Zenobia Zaiwalla and Luci

Paul Gringras, Dido Green, Barry Wright, Carla Rush, Masako Sparrowhawk, Karen



Updated Information &


including high resolution figures, can be found at:



This article cites 19 articles, 2 of which you can access for free at:

Subspecialty Collections


Sleep Medicine





Developmental/Behavioral Pediatrics

following collection(s):

This article, along with others on similar topics, appears in the

Permissions & Licensing


in its entirety can be found online at:

Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or




DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-4285 originally published online July 14, 2014;




Pratt, Victoria Allgar, Naomi Hooke, Danielle Moore, Zenobia Zaiwalla and Luci

Paul Gringras, Dido Green, Barry Wright, Carla Rush, Masako Sparrowhawk, Karen


A Randomized Controlled


Weighted Blankets and Sleep in Autistic Children


located on the World Wide Web at:

The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is

by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 1073-0397.


TABLE 1 Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population


Baseline Characteristics of the Study Population p.3
FIGURE 1Trial flowchart. T, time.


flowchart. T, time. p.4


TABLE 2 Comparison of Trial Groups on Primary and Secondary Sleep Variables at Baseline


Comparison of Trial Groups on Primary and Secondary Sleep Variables at Baseline p.6
TABLE 3 Sleep Outcomes


Sleep Outcomes p.7
TABLE 4 Questionnaire Outcomes


Questionnaire Outcomes p.7
TABLE 6 Results of Exploratory Analyses


Results of Exploratory Analyses p.8
TABLE 5 Child and Parent Opinions


Child and Parent Opinions p.8