Health coaching for parents of children with developmental disabilities: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To determine the level of evidence on the effectiveness of health coaching for parents of children with disabilities. METHOD: A systematic review approach, comprised of a comprehensive, librarian-guided literature search; transparent study selection and data extraction; quality assessment; and synthesis of sufficiently similar data (per population, intervention nature, and overall level of evidence for each outcome using standard definitions) was undertaken. RESULTS: Twenty-eight studies (13 randomized clinical trials) were included. Three health coaching approaches were identified: child-targeted (most commonly applied), parent-targeted, and a mixed approach. Overall, there is an insufficient-to-limited level of evidence regarding the effectiveness of these approaches. INTERPRETATION: High-quality clinical trials using the parent-targeted coaching approach are warranted. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Health coaching parents of children with disabilities is an emergent practice. Child-targeted, parent-targeted, or mixed health coaching approaches exist. The child-targeted health coaching approach is currently most applied. Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder are the most common recipients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".