Parent‐to‐parent support for childhood neurodisability: A qualitative analysis and proposed model of peer support and family resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Qualitative studies have shown that peer support is of value to parents and other caregivers of children with neurodisability. However, this value likely cascades to other areas such as family well-being. There are various forms and functions of peer support, and how they operate is not well understood for this population. Models of family resilience theory can be helpful to situate the impact of parent-to-parent peer support processes within a family context to further explain how this type of assistance is beneficial. Our study aimed to describe the specific pathways by which peer support may contribute to resilience in families and how processes embedded in this type of support can enrich family resilience theory. METHODS: Using reflexive thematic analysis, we examined transcripts and notes from 19 interviews with parents of children with neurodisabilities regarding their involvement in a large (n = 300) and predominantly volunteer-based peer support network in western Canada. Using an inductive coding method, we identified patterns in the data. Following a process of reflection and discussion, we then used a deductive approach to situate themes within a family resilience theoretical framework. RESULTS: We identified three main themes from the data: Modifying belief systems through shared lived experience; navigating resources; and negotiating resources and engaging in social discourses. These themes confirm previous findings in the literature, and the subthemes demonstrate how they may contribute to broader family-level experiences beyond that of the parent. CONCLUSION: We present a model for understanding how processes in peer support can be understood within a family resilience theoretical framework. We also propose that the reciprocity embedded within peer support builds upon previous concepts within family resilience theory. Future studies can use this theoretical framework to guide research questions to further explore the effects of peer support at the family and community levels.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".