MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205837689 · doi:10.1080/09638288.2021.2017493

Content analysis of parent training programs for children with neurodisabilities and mental health or behavioral problems: a scoping review

2022· review· en· W4205837689 on OpenAlexafffund
Jeffrey McCrossin, Lucyna Lach, Patrick J. McGrath

Bibliographic record

VenueDisability and Rehabilitation · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie UniversityMcGill University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsParent trainingMental healthPsychological interventionAnxietyAutism spectrum disorderPsychologyClinical psychologyAttention deficit hyperactivity disorderConduct disorderDevelopmental psychologyAutismIntervention (counseling)Psychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Several systematic reviews have examined parent training programs for families of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The present review expands on this literature by describing the components, delivery methods, and level of parent involvement in parent training programs that target families of children with any neurodisability and comorbid disruptive behavior or other mental health problem. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following a scoping review protocol, the search strategy included randomized controlled trials of parent training programs conducted with families of children with neurodisabilities and comorbid disruptive behavior or mental health problems. Study characteristics, program content, delivery methods, and theoretical frameworks were extracted from eligible studies. RESULTS: A total of 22 articles were included from the 453 full-text articles initially screened. Thirteen different programs fell into two general categories based on whether they targeted child disruptive behavior or anxiety. Analysis of the content yielded five themes: child skill enhancement, parenting as enacted, parenting as experienced, disability-related parenting, and parent-child relationships. The theoretical underpinnings were identified, when possible, from each study. CONCLUSIONS: Parent training programs for parents of children with neurodisabilities targeting child anxiety involved parents in a complementary role in treatment while those targeting disruptive behavior involved parents in a primary role in creating behavior change. We suggest that the extent of parent involvement in interventions be guided by theory rather than diagnosis of the child.Implications for rehabilitationParents of children living with neurodisabilities play a key role in delivering interventions to address comorbid mental health or behavioral problems.Parent training programs for families of children with neurodisabilities vary in relation to their aims, involvement of parents in delivering interventions, disability-specific content, and delivery methods.When referring families, rehabilitation professionals should be aware of aspects of child, parent, and family relational well-being targeted by parent training programs and, when feasible, give families a choice of the style of program to meet their needs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.119
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.147

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.119
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.008
Bibliometrics0.0300.026
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.133 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisability and RehabilitationSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207