MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4396557609 · doi:10.1177/23969415241244767

“We were the best people to do the job”: Caregivers’ reported outcomes of a virtual caregiver-delivered program for autistic preschoolers

2024· article· en· W4396557609 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.
fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.

Notice bibliographique

RevueAutism & Developmental Language Impairments · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueFamily and Disability Support Research
Établissements canadiensThames Valley Children's CentreWestern University
Organismes subventionnairesSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Mots-clésPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Background and aims Caregiver-delivered programs are a recommended best practice to support young autistic children. While research has extensively explored children's outcomes quantitatively, minimal qualitative research has been conducted to understand caregivers’ perspectives of program outcomes for themselves and their children. Hearing directly from caregivers is an important step in ensuring these programs are meeting the needs of those who use them. This study explored caregivers’ perceived outcomes following one virtual caregiver-delivered program, The Hanen Centre's More Than Words ® (MTW) program . Methods This study was a secondary analysis of data from individual interviews conducted with 21 caregivers who had recently participated in a virtual MTW program. A hybrid codebook thematic analysis approach was taken to analyze the interview data. Program outcomes were coded and analyzed within the International Classification Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Additionally, caregivers completed an online survey and rated Likert Scale items about perceived program outcomes, which were analyzed descriptively. Results Five themes were identified: (1) caregivers learned new strategies to facilitate their child's development, (2) caregivers developed a new mindset, (3) children gained functional communication skills, (4) caregiver–child relationships improved, and (5) caregivers gained a social and professional support network. These themes fell within four of five ICF framework components (activities, participation, personal factors, and environmental factors). No themes were identified under Body Structures and Functions. Survey results indicated most caregivers reported learning new communication strategies ( n = 20, 95%), and identifying new teaching opportunities with their child ( n = 21, 100%). Conclusions Some reported outcomes, related to Activities and Participation, were consistent with previous reports in the literature on the MTW program. In line with previous research, caregivers learned strategies to support their child's communication development. Contrary to previous quantitative studies, caregivers in this study rarely commented on gains in vocabulary and instead focused on gains in skills that positively impacted their child's ability to engage in meaningful social interaction. Novel outcomes were identified within the Participation, Personal Factors, and Environmental Factors components of the ICF framework. Implications Caregivers in this study identified important outcomes for themselves and their child that have not been the focus of prior research, suggesting it is important to integrate their perspectives in the development and evaluation of caregiver-delivered programs. Clinicians should include goals that address outcomes identified as important by caregivers, including those that address children's Participation, and those that target caregivers’ Personal and Environmental Factors. Developers of caregiver-delivered programs could integrate identified goals to ensure they are meeting families’ needs.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,308
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,023
Tête enseignante GPT0,352
Écart entre enseignants0,328 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle