Stress and relief: parents attending a respite program.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to examine changes in stress among parents of children with special needs in a respite service and consider parental experience of the service. METHODS: Families who were enrolled in a ten-month centre-based respite program were invited to participate in the evaluation. Change in parent stress, indexed by the Parent Stress Index-Short Form (PSI-SF), was determined. These results were compared with findings from exploratory qualitative interviews with a subset of parents and a small comparison group who also completed the PSI-SF. RESULTS: At baseline, 69% of parents (n=45) had high total stress scores on the PSI-SF. No significant improvements were detected on parent stress over time or differences from improvements in the comparison group. In contrast, the subgroup of parents (n=10) who participated in the qualitative interviews described substantial benefits from the respite program including a sense of relief and having time for other activities. CONCLUSIONS: It is proposed that the respite program may have provided a temporary break to parents thereby bestowing a sense of relief, but was not adequate to impact on more chronic stress patterns, suggesting that these are related but separate constructs and experiences.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".