Communication Barriers and Challenges for Accessing Autism Care: Conventional Versus Alternative Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the widespread use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for autistic children, little is known about the communication flow between the different parties involved in the care (i.e., parents/caregivers, conventional providers, alternative practitioners). This study aimed to describe how communication occurs through the first year of care to identify challenges and potential barriers to communication that may affect the care of autistic children. Methods: From an ecological perspective, we collected qualitative data through 12 semi-structured interviews with six parents/caregivers, three conventional providers (family doctor, neurodevelopmental pediatrician, psychologist), and three alternative practitioners (naturopath, occupational therapist, speech and language pathologist) operating in Ottawa, Canada. The data was interpreted using thematic analysis. Results: Findings revealed that parents/caregivers are the only links between the health professionals of both streams. The communication between parents/caregivers and conventional providers faces a perceived lack of knowledge of these professionals relating to CAM, a lack of care integration, flexibility, and time constraints. In alternative care settings, care integration and time constraints are an issue. From the five contexts examined, only the organizational and interpersonal contexts influence communication flow within the system. Conclusions: The increasing interest in alternative medicine is forcing changes in the healthcare system. Within the identified themes in the current study, the necessity for communication between all parties involved in the care of autistic children is evident. More ASD and CAM-related training for providers and openings for information-sharing between the two streams would support effective parent/caregiver-care provider communication. These findings contribute to a better understanding of the role of communication in the care management of autism, which has implications for effective autism care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".