For autistic persons by autistic persons: Acceptability of a structured peer support service according to key stakeholders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Social support is a protective factor in the mental health of autistic people. Furthermore, prejudice regarding autistic people is a constraint for the development of social support programmes by autistic peers. METHODS: The objective of this study is to describe the anticipated acceptability of structured peer support programmes for and by autistic persons. Fifteen key stakeholders (six autistic adults, four caregivers and five service providers) participated in in-depth semistructured interviews. A qualitative thematic analysis of the content of the verbatim was carried out. FINDINGS: We found that while a structured peer social support programme is acceptable to autistic people and caregivers, there was no consensus among service providers. The latter expressed doubts about the ability of autistic people to offer support. The framing of discussions between peers, the training of peer helpers, the support for autistic leadership and an organization that considers the communicational and sensory characteristics of autistic persons, could influence adherence to such a programme. Moreover, a space without service providers is an important condition for the acceptability of a peer support programme. CONCLUSION: A structured peer support service for and by autistic persons could be an innovative way to answer the unmet support needs of autistic people. It seems essential to anticipate potential barriers and facilitators and to communicate among health professionals to promote this approach and reduce possible prejudice about the ability of autistic people to offer support to their peers. More studies are necessary. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Fifteen key stakeholders who are involved in autistic people's trajectory of service and support participated in this research. We are a research team composed of healthcare professionals and researchers, in addition to one member of our team being an autistic advocate and a mental health peer-support mentor. Two members of our team are also parents of autistic children. The comprehensibility of the questions for the interview was consulted and discussed with one autistic advocate-collaborator.
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 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".