MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4285386570 · doi:10.21913/tahs.v3i2.1625

Group coaching intervention with parents of children with autism spectrum disorder in Brazil – a pilot study

2022· article· en· W4285386570 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luisa Aragão, Izabela Lambertucci, Carla Ribeiro Lage, Phoebe Lovell, Ana Amélia Cardoso

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Allied Health Scholar · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoachingCompetence (human resources)Psychological interventionIntervention (counseling)AutismAutism spectrum disorderOccupational therapyPsychologyPopulationClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatryPsychotherapistSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Caring for children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) entails changes in family dynamics. In Brazil, the journey from diagnosis to treatment is characterized by several barriers. Families and their children can be empowered to achieve occupational performance goals through parental coaching interventions. There is, however, limited national evidence on coaching interventions designed to support this population. Aim: This pilot study examines the effects of a coaching intervention program on the occupational performance of Brazilian children with ASD and their families. Methods: A single-subject experimental design was used to conduct group coaching sessions with 16 caregivers over ten weekly sessions. The intervention was designed following the principles of Occupational Performance Coaching (OPC) and was conducted in a group setting to address the economic constraints of the Brazilian health system. The assessment tools adopted were the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and the Developmental History Questionnaire, developed by the authors. During group coaching intervention sessions, occupational performance in the home environment and the efficacy of strategies developed in collaboration with caregivers were observed and discussed. Ultimately, the COPM goals were reassessed by the participants. Results: The average difference for COPM performance and satisfaction scores indicated significant changes, demonstrating that the group coaching intervention improved the participants' occupational performance. Caregivers reported a broader understanding of ASD and its implications for their children's daily lives. In addition, they have enhanced problem-solving skills and reported increased sense of self-efficacy and competence. Application and Conclusion: This pilot study has contributed to the literature on using group coaching interventions to increase the occupational performance of participating children and their families. Our findings indicate that the use of OPC principles is promising in Brazil. These initial findings can encourage further research in this emerging intervention approach and support family-centred interventions in paediatric occupational therapy in Brazil.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Allied Health Scholar→Same topicFamily and Disability Support Research→French-language works237,207→