MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963140588 · doi:10.3389/fped.2019.00332

BRIGHT Coaching: A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Effectiveness of a Developmental Coach System to Empower Families of Children With Emerging Developmental Delay

2019· article· en· W2963140588 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Annette Majnemer, Maureen O’Donnell, Tatiana Ogourtsova, Bahar Kasaai, Marilyn Ballantyne, Eyal Cohen, Jean‐Paul Collet, Tammie Dewan, Mayada Elsabbagh, Ana Hanlon‐Dearman, Jillian Filliter, Lucyna Lach, Theresa McElroy, Patrick J. McGrath, William H. McKellin, Anton R. Miller, Hema Patel, Gina Rempel, Michael Shevell, Kristy Wittmeier

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Pediatrics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital Research Institute of ManitobaHealth Sciences CentreChildren's Hospital of WinnipegChild and Family Research InstituteIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreRare Disease FoundationMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreDalhousie UniversityHolland Bloorview Kids Rehabilitation HospitalBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of ManitobaMontreal Children's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcGill University Health Centre
KeywordsCoachingHealth coachingRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)MedicineChild developmentPsychologyNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In preschool-aged children with, or at elevated risk for, developmental disabilities, challenges and needs arise from vulnerabilities linked to critical and newly emerging cognitive, speech, motor, behavioural and social skills. For families, this can be a stressful period as they witness the gradual unfolding of their child’s differences and await to receive care. Nationally and internationally, service delivery models during this critical period are not standardised nor are they nimble or sufficient enough, leading to long wait times, service gaps and duplication. Given these struggles, there is a need to examine whether ‘health coaching’, a structured educational program that is deliverable by different and more accessible means, can be effective in empowering families, by delivering information, providing social supports, and decreasing the demands on the overwhelmed health and developmental services. The primary objective is to evaluate the feasibility and the effectiveness of a coaching intervention (in comparison to usual and locally available care), for parents of children with emerging developmental delays. Method/Design: A multi-centred pragmatic randomised controlled trial design will be used. Families will be recruited from a representative sample of those awaiting publicly-funded regional child health services for children with developmental delays in four Canadian provinces. The target sample size is 392 families with children aged 1.5 to 4.5 years at recruitment date. Families will be randomly assigned to receive either the BRIGHT Coaching intervention (coach supported, hard-copy and online self-managed educational resources: 14 sessions, 2 sessions every 4 weeks for 6-9 months) or usual care that is locally available. In addition to the feasibility and acceptability measures, outcomes related to family empowerment, parental satisfaction and efficacy with caregiver competency will be evaluated at baseline, post-treatment (8 months), and follow-up (12 months). Discussion: This manuscript presents the background information, design, description of the interventions and of the protocol for the randomised controlled trial on the effectiveness of BRIGHT Coaching intervention for families of children with emerging developmental delays. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health #NCT03880383, 03/15/2019. Retrospectively registered.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PediatricsSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207