MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396557609 · doi:10.1177/23969415241244767

“We were the best people to do the job”: Caregivers’ reported outcomes of a virtual caregiver-delivered program for autistic preschoolers

2024· article· en· W4396557609 on OpenAlexafffund
Lauren Denusik, Danielle Glista, Michelle Servais, J.A. Friesen, Janis Oram Cardy, Barbara Jane Cunningham

Bibliographic record

VenueAutism & Developmental Language Impairments · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsThames Valley Children's CentreWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and aims Caregiver-delivered programs are a recommended best practice to support young autistic children. While research has extensively explored children's outcomes quantitatively, minimal qualitative research has been conducted to understand caregivers’ perspectives of program outcomes for themselves and their children. Hearing directly from caregivers is an important step in ensuring these programs are meeting the needs of those who use them. This study explored caregivers’ perceived outcomes following one virtual caregiver-delivered program, The Hanen Centre's More Than Words ® (MTW) program . Methods This study was a secondary analysis of data from individual interviews conducted with 21 caregivers who had recently participated in a virtual MTW program. A hybrid codebook thematic analysis approach was taken to analyze the interview data. Program outcomes were coded and analyzed within the International Classification Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) framework. Additionally, caregivers completed an online survey and rated Likert Scale items about perceived program outcomes, which were analyzed descriptively. Results Five themes were identified: (1) caregivers learned new strategies to facilitate their child's development, (2) caregivers developed a new mindset, (3) children gained functional communication skills, (4) caregiver–child relationships improved, and (5) caregivers gained a social and professional support network. These themes fell within four of five ICF framework components (activities, participation, personal factors, and environmental factors). No themes were identified under Body Structures and Functions. Survey results indicated most caregivers reported learning new communication strategies ( n = 20, 95%), and identifying new teaching opportunities with their child ( n = 21, 100%). Conclusions Some reported outcomes, related to Activities and Participation, were consistent with previous reports in the literature on the MTW program. In line with previous research, caregivers learned strategies to support their child's communication development. Contrary to previous quantitative studies, caregivers in this study rarely commented on gains in vocabulary and instead focused on gains in skills that positively impacted their child's ability to engage in meaningful social interaction. Novel outcomes were identified within the Participation, Personal Factors, and Environmental Factors components of the ICF framework. Implications Caregivers in this study identified important outcomes for themselves and their child that have not been the focus of prior research, suggesting it is important to integrate their perspectives in the development and evaluation of caregiver-delivered programs. Clinicians should include goals that address outcomes identified as important by caregivers, including those that address children's Participation, and those that target caregivers’ Personal and Environmental Factors. Developers of caregiver-delivered programs could integrate identified goals to ensure they are meeting families’ needs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAutism & Developmental Language ImpairmentsSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207