“There’s nothing here”: Perspectives from rural parents promoting safe active recreation for children living with autism spectrum disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and their families experience challenges and barriers at multiple levels that influence their activity participation. The purpose of this study was to develop understanding about factors influencing how families can promote safe, active recreation for their children 3-12 years living with ASD across rural settings and how supports for these families can be enhanced. METHODS: This qualitative study used an interpretive descriptive approach. Twelve in-depth, semi-structured interviews with parents of children with ASD were conducted. Data was analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Four main themes emerged: 1) ASD specific child vulnerabilities impeding safe recreation. 2) Importance of safe outdoor spaces in rural settings for children with ASD. 3) Diverse parent strategies to address risks and needs. 4) Perceived needs for training of recreation providers. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight family-centred priority issues including parental safety concerns related to elopement and risk of injury linked to environmental and outdoor hazards prominent in rural settings. Autism awareness and recreational training is needed and could incorporate collaborative development of child specific safety plans to foster inclusive opportunities. Program planners can use this information to encourage policy making to aid families' safe activity participation.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".