“I Know How to Advocate”: Parents’ Experiences in Advocating for Children and Youth Diagnosed With Autism Spectrum Disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Parental advocacy is a dynamic process that changes depending on the circumstances and needs of the child and parent. Communication deficits related to an Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) diagnosis often necessitate parental advocacy. This study describes how parents and caregivers of children and youth diagnosed with ASD engage in parental advocacy, the challenges they encounter and the advocacy skills they develop. METHOD: We used descriptive exploratory methodology informed by reflexive thematic analysis. The aim of the study was to explore advocacy in parents and caregivers of children and youth diagnosed with ASD. RESULTS: We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 15 parents of children and youth with an ASD diagnosis living in 4 provinces of Atlantic Canada. The pathway in parents' advocacy journey included: (1) Expressing concerns; (2) Seeking help, assessment, and diagnosis; (3) Acquiring services; (4) Removing barriers; and (5) Developing advocacy skills. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings illustrate the process of parental advocacy, skill development, and the barriers parents encounter in advocating for their children with ASD. Future research might explore how health professionals can support parents' advocacy efforts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".