Leveraging Feedback From Families of Children With Autism to Create Digital Support for Service Navigation: Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is difficult for families to navigate and access services for their children with autism. Barriers to service access are compounded among families from low-resourced backgrounds. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to explore the development of an app to facilitate access to services among families of children with autism from low-resourced backgrounds. Our specific aims were to explore feedback from an advisory board about the app and to explore feedback from navigators about the app. METHODS: Via a multistage codevelopment process, we elicited feedback from 5 key parties: the research team, a community organization, the app development team, the advisory board, and family navigators. Collectively, 36 individuals provided feedback about the development of the app via individual interviews, focus groups, observations, and surveys. The key features of the app included a dashboard showing the service needs of the family and related resources, a messaging feature between the family, the navigator, and the supervisor, and a fidelity checklist and evaluation feature. RESULTS: The advisory board provided feedback about the app to increase its user-friendliness, include the ability to develop an action plan, improve the identification of needed services, and add information about service providers. Navigators suggested that the app should connect navigators to one another, have a clearer purpose for the notes section, and reflect an easier log-in process. Navigators also wanted training to role-play using the app. After participating in a role play using the app, navigators reported significantly more satisfaction with the app and greater usefulness (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our work sheds light on the importance of eliciting feedback from end users, especially users who are often overlooked by the research community and app developers. Further, it is important to elicit feedback in multiple ways to improve the app.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".