Acceptability and feasibility of the World Health Organization's Caregiver Skills Training Programme (WHO CST) delivered via eLearning, videoconferencing, and in-person hybrid modalities in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Local children with developmental disabilities were deprived of learning opportunities due to recent social and health incidents, resulting in elevating challenging behaviors and familial conflicts. This study explored the acceptability and feasibility of the World Health Organization's Caregiver Skills Training Programme (WHO CST) in alternative delivery modes under new normal and post COVID-19 period. Method: = 9). Data from two standardized scales of General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) and Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), and Post-session and Home Visit Feedback Form by Caregivers that included both structured and open-ended questions were collected before and after intervention. Both quantitative and qualitative approaches were used in studying the collected data. Results: High levels of acceptability and feasibility of the training programme were supported by ratings on comprehensiveness and relevance, agreement with their personal values, duration, and usefulness. IP and VC groups yielded more positive changes than EL and WLC groups with 3, 16, 13, and -3% in General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), -13, -15, -6 and 0% in Difficulties-total, and 36.5, 35.5, 5.8 and 2.4% in Prosocial Scale at Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) for EL, VC, IP, and WLC groups respectively from baseline to 12 weeks after intervention. Results from two standardized scales echoed with qualitative observations that the programme helped improve caregivers' well-being, child's communication, and behaviors across intervention groups. Conclusions: Current findings revealed that CST delivered in three alternative modes were acceptable and feasible, and yielded positive impacts toward both caregivers and children. In-person coaching, and skill-practicing sessions were effective in mitigating child's challenging behaviors while personal interaction, either face-to-face or virtual, is a significant factor in uplifting caregivers' well-being, whereas the self-learning model was appreciated by the busy caregivers. In clinical practice, needs and goals of families and the constraints of remote interventions at the settings should be balanced.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".