Parent-to-parent peer support for parents of children with a disability: A mixed method study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper will report on the findings of a study which investigated the influence of a befriending (parent-to-parent peer support) scheme on parents whose children have a disability or additional need. The scheme operated from an acute children's tertiary setting in the UK. METHODS: A prospective concurrent mixed method design collected interview (n=70) and questionnaire (n=68) data at two time-points from befrienders (n=13) and befriendees (n=26). RESULTS: The main qualitative findings of the study relate to the different degrees parents (befriendees and befrienders) moved from being lost, to finding and being a guide and getting to a better place. The quantitative findings demonstrate that parent-to-parent peer support has a positive influence on parents' levels of psychological distress and their ability to cope with being a parent of a child with a disability. CONCLUSION: The befriending scheme acted as a catalyst for many parents to move towards a place where they could grow and begin to flourish and thrive. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Professionals should inform parents who have a child with a disability that peer-to-peer parenting support schemes are a valuable and appropriate source of support and help.
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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".