Adapting and pretesting the World Health Organization’s Caregiver Skills Training Program for children with autism and developmental disorders or delays in Hong Kong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization Caregiver Skills Training Program (WHO-CST) was developed to strengthen caregivers' skills in supporting children with developmental delays and the caregivers' well-being. The WHO-CST Hong Kong (HK) was adapted, and pre-pilot tested to support families with children suspected of having developmental delays and autism spectrum disorder and to empower the caregivers to foster their children's learning, social communication, and adaptive behavior. A sequential mixed-methods research methodology was undertaken to examine the adaptation process and initial implementation experiences. The acceptability, feasibility, and perceived benefits of the WHO-CST were assessed using stakeholders' and caregivers' qualitative and caregivers' quantitative pre- and post-intervention feedback. The data included materials generated from (1) three consultation meetings with stakeholders; (2) detailed reviews of the translated and adapted WHO-CST materials by master trainees (n = 10) trained by the WHO-CST representatives; (3) needs assessment focus group interviews with caregivers (n = 15) of children with autism spectrum disorder; and (4) pre- and post-CST program qualitative focus group interviews and quantitative evaluation. Consultation with stakeholders suggested that the program was acceptable for the local community, but the home visit and fidelity components were initially considered to be challenges towards the feasibility and sustainability of the program. Caregivers in the needs assessment focus groups gave widely diverse views about the program's uniqueness, length, delivery mode, and the inclusion of videotaping in-home visits. Post-intervention comments by caregivers about the program were mainly positive, while the MTs were critical of the content and length of the training and fidelity process. As one of the first high-income locations to adopt the WHO-CST, the evaluation findings of the WHO-CST-HK indicate that it is feasible and acceptable to implement the program in a metropolitan area where families have busy work schedules and are very conscious of privacy issues. The study results suggest that the WHO-CST program in HK and other high-income countries require scaling up and further evaluation of its implementation in real community settings. This involves systemic and contextual changes to allow task-sharing between professionals and non-specialists at the macro level. Furthermore, technology should be used to support the supervision of non-specialists. In addition, easier access to the WHO-CST materials at the micro level is required to ensure equity, equality, diversity, and inclusion of diversified families of children with developmental delays.
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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".