Randomized controlled trial of a sibling support group: Mental health outcomes for siblings of children with autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Typically developing siblings of a child with autism spectrum disorder may be at increased risk of mental health difficulties. A support group is one approach to improve mental health outcomes for typically developing siblings. During support groups, typically developing siblings discuss their feelings, learn coping strategies and problem-solving skills, and develop a peer network. We conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing a support group to an attention-only social control group. Some areas of mental health improved. Autism spectrum disorder symptom severity in the sibling with autism spectrum disorder moderated effects. Findings suggest continuing to examine what areas of mental health and adjustment are improved with support groups and subgroups of typically developing siblings for whom support groups might be particularly effective. Lay abstract Typically developing siblings of a child with autism spectrum disorder may show mental health difficulties. A support group is one approach to help typically developing siblings. During support groups, typically developing siblings discuss their feelings, learn coping strategies and problem-solving skills, and develop a peer network. We compared a support group to participation in a similar group without a focus on the sibling with autism spectrum disorder. Some areas of mental health improved. Improvements were also impacted by autism spectrum disorder symptom severity in the sibling with autism spectrum disorder. Findings suggest continuing to examine how support groups can help typically developing siblings and for which siblings support groups might be particularly effective.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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".