Feasibility and Acceptability of Delivering Pivotal Response Treatment for Autism Spectrum Disorder via Telehealth: Pilot Pre-Post Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pivotal response treatment (PRT), an evidence-based and parent-delivered intervention, is designed to improve social communication in autistic individuals. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and clinical effects of an online model of PRT delivered via MindNest Health, a telehealth platform that aims to provide self-directed and engaging online modules, real-time coaching and feedback, and accessible stepped-care to large populations of parents seeking resources for their autistic children. METHODS: Male and female autistic children, aged 2-7 years with single-word to phrase-level speech, and their parents were eligible to participate in the study. Families were randomized to the online parent training condition or control condition. The online component of the intervention consisted of eight 20-minute online courses of content describing parent training principles in PRT. Four 1-hour videoconferences were held after course 1, course 3, course 5, and course 8. Parents were given 1-2 weeks to complete each course. Parents completed the Client Credibility Questionnaire (CCQ) at week 2 and at the study endpoint, as well as the Behavioral Intervention Rating Scale (BIRS) at the study endpoint to assess parental expectancies, and treatment acceptability and effectiveness. RESULTS: Nine of 14 participants completed the study curriculum in the online parent training condition, and 6 of 12 participants completed the control condition. Thus, a total of 58% (15/26) participants across both groups completed the study curriculum by study closure. Within the online parent training condition, there was a significant increase in mean CCQ total scores, from 25.38 (SD 3.25) at baseline to 27.5 (SD 3.74) at study endpoint (P=.04); mean CCQ confidence scores, from 6.0 (SD 1.07) at baseline to 6.75 (SD 0.89) at study endpoint (P=.02); and mean CCQ other improvement scores, from 5.25 (SD 0.89) at baseline to 6.25 (SD 1.28) at study endpoint (P=.009). Within the control condition, a modest increase in mean CCQ scores was noted (Confidence, difference=+0.25; Recommend, difference=+0.25; Total Score, difference=+0.50), but the differences were not statistically significant (Confidence P=.38, Recommend P=.36, Total Score P=.43). Among the 11 parents who completed the BIRS at the study endpoint, 82% (n=9) endorsed that they slightly agree or agree with over 93% of the Acceptability factor items on the BIRS. CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of this online treatment is endorsed by the high rate of online module completion and attendance to videoconferences within the online parent training group. Acceptability of treatment is supported by strong ratings on the CCQ and significant improvements in scores, as well as strong ratings on the BIRS. This study's small sample size limits the conclusions that can be drawn; however, the PRT MindNest Health platform holds promise to support parents of autistic children who are unable to access traditional, in-person parent-mediated interventions for their child.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".