Parental evaluation of a revised autism spectrum disorder diagnostic process for children under 36 months of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Alberta Children's Hospital-Autism Spectrum Disorder Diagnostic Clinic (ACH-ASDC) was restructured due to long wait times and unsustainable clinic workflow. Major changes included the initiation of pre- and post-ASD parent education sessions and distinct ASD screening appointments before the ASD diagnostic appointment. METHODS: We conducted a parental program evaluation in summer 2018 of the ACH-ASDC. We used a cross-sectional survey to evaluate key outcomes including parental satisfaction, and the percentage of families obtaining access to government supports and early intervention programs. RESULTS: For the 101 eligible patients diagnosed with ASD under 36 months of age 70 (69.3%) parents agreed to participate. The mean diagnostic age of the children diagnosed with ASD was 30.6 months (SD=4.1 months). There were no statistically significant age differences between biological sexes. Ninety-three per cent of parents felt that ASD educational sessions were useful, and 92% of parents were satisfied to very satisfied with the overall ASD diagnostic process. Ninety per cent of parents had access to at least one of the key resources available for ASD early intervention in our province following diagnosis. Parents reported a positive impact on intervention provided to their child in the areas of communication, social interaction, and behaviour. CONCLUSION: Parents of children diagnosed with ASD expressed a high level of satisfaction with the restructured ACH-ASDC process. Implementing parent education sessions was well received and met parents' needs. Parents were able to access intervention services following diagnosis and reported positive impacts for their child. Re-envisioning program approaches to incorporate novel strategies to support families should be encouraged.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".