MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259709710 · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003496

Parent-mediated early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder

2002· review· en· W2259709710 on OpenAlexaff
Tim Diggle, Helen McConachie

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsChild, Adolescent and Family Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAutism spectrum disorderPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)AutismClinical psychologyPediatricsFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent estimates concerning the prevalence of autistic spectrum disorder are much higher than those reported 30 years ago, with at least 1 in 400 children affected. This group of children and families have important service needs. The involvement of parents in implementing intervention strategies designed to help their autistic children has long been accepted as helpful. The potential benefits are increased skills and reduced stress for parents as well as children. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to determine the extent to which parent-mediated early intervention has been shown to be effective in the treatment of children aged 1 year to 6 years 11 months with autistic spectrum disorder. In particular, it aimed to assess the effectiveness of such interventions in terms of the benefits for both children and their parents. SEARCH STRATEGY: A range of psychological, educational and biomedical databases were searched. Bibliographies and reference lists of key articles were searched, field experts were contacted and key journals were hand searched. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised or quasi-randomised studies were included. Study interventions had a significant focus on parent-implemented early intervention, compared to a group of children who received no treatment, a waiting list group or a different form of intervention. There was at least one objective, child related outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Appraisal of the methodological quality of included studies was carried out independently by two reviewers. Differences between the included studies in terms of the type of intervention, the comparison groups used and the outcome measures were too great to allow for direct comparison. MAIN RESULTS: The results of this review are based on data from two studies. Two significant results were found to favour parent training in one study: child language and maternal knowledge of autism. In the other, intensive intervention (involving parents, but primarily delivered by professionals) was associated with better child outcomes on direct measurement than were found for parent-mediated early intervention, but no differences were found in relation to measures of parent and teacher perceptions of skills and behaviours. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: This review has little to offer in the way of implications for practice: there were only two studies, the numbers of participants included were small, and the two studies could not be compared directly to one another. In terms of research, randomised controlled trials involving large samples need to be carried out, involving both short and long-term outcome information and full economic evaluations. Research in this area is hampered by barriers to randomisation, such as availability of equivalent services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.007

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.273 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations113
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsFrench-language works237,207