MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101239098 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005799

Parent skills training for parents of children or adults with developmental disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2014· article· en· W2101239098 on OpenAlexaff
Brian Reichow, Cary S. Kogan, Corrado Barbui, I Smith, M. Taghi Yasamy, Chiara Servili

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionAutism Speaks
KeywordsMedicineParent trainingAutism spectrum disorderAutismProtocol (science)Psychological interventionPopulationSystematic reviewSocial skillsIntellectual disabilityClinical psychologyMeta-analysisMEDLINEDevelopmental psychologyPsychiatryIntervention (counseling)PsychologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Developmental disorders, including intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorders, may limit an individual's capacity to conduct daily activities. The emotional and economic burden on families caring for an individual with a developmental disorder is substantial, and quality of life may be limited by a lack of services. Therefore, finding effective treatments to help this population should be a priority. Recent work has shown parent skills training interventions improve developmental, behavioural and family outcomes. The purpose of this review protocol is to extend previous findings by systematically analysing randomised controlled trials of parent skills training programmes for parents of children with developmental disorders including intellectual disabilities and autism spectrum disorders and use meta-analytic techniques to identify programme components reliably associated with successful outcomes of parent skills training programmes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include all studies conducted using randomised control trials designs that compare a group of parents receiving a parent skills training programme to a group of parents in a no-treatment control, waitlist control or treatment as usual comparison group. To locate studies, we will conduct an extensive electronic database search and then use snowball methods, with no limits to publication year or language. We will present a narrative synthesis including visual displays of study effects on child and parental outcomes and conduct a quantitative synthesis of the effects of parent skills training programmes using meta-analytic techniques. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical issues are foreseen and ethical approval is not required given this is a protocol for a systematic review. The findings of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conference presentations. Updates of the review will be conducted, as necessary, to inform and guide practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42014006993).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.069
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.121
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0690.121
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.018
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0070.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0830.008

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.

Opus teacher head0.214
GPT teacher head0.492
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207