When satisfaction is not directly related to the support services received: understanding parents' varied experiences with specialised services for children with developmental disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accessible summary Parents of children with developmental disabilities need formal support services to help them. Their well‐being and satisfaction depend on how the support services respond to their needs. Some parents want to be more involved in decisions about support services and intervention for the best of their child's interests. Other parents believe that the child's best interest are addressed adequately by the professionals who deliver the services. Summary Parents of children with developmental disabilities (autism or intellectual disabilities) are more susceptible to stress and have a greater burden of adversity than other parents. Their well‐being and satisfaction greatly depend on the system's response of finding them formal support and the help they need. This study proposes an interpretive approach, based on the (fifteen) parents' experiences, to find and understand the strengths and weaknesses of specialised support services. Furthermore, our research aims to obtain data on parents' experiences in order to identify the conditions and the perceptions on which feeling satisfaction or dissatisfaction is based. The situations that were considered positive are all directly related to the professional concrete support parents say they received (e.g. ‘working with’ their child to improve communication with him or her, understanding his or her issues, and managing difficult behaviours). However, the overall experience of each parent has either a dominant positive or a dominant negative connotation. The parents' satisfaction or dissatisfaction appears to be constructed from two criteria: (i) whether parents see themselves as experts or nonexperts on the situation of their child and (ii) parents' opinions on the purpose or goal of the intervention or of the services they received.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".