CHALLENGES AND COPING STRATEGIES OF AUTISM PARENTING: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW OF PARENTS’ AUTOETHNOGRAPHIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Purpose: Parents of autistic children face caregiving challenges, yet there is a dearth of research specifically analysing parents’ autoethnographies. This systematic literature review explores themes of challenges and coping strategies in autism caregiving, guided by the Transactional Theory of Stress and Coping (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Methodology: Following Kitchenham and Charters’ (2007) guidelines, a systematic literature search of autoethnographies by parents of autistic children was conducted using online databases. The search was guided by two questions: (1) What are the challenges faced by parents caring for their autistic children?; and (2) What are the coping strategies employed by parents in caring for their autistic children? Findings: Twelve autoethnographies were analysed. Themes regarding challenges included parents experiencing fears, feeling despair and facing barriers and stigmatisation. Coping strategies identified included parents seeking answers, having hopes, and gaining empowerment besides providing support. Limitations and future research directions were discussed. Contributions: This paper emphasises understanding challenges faced by parents of autistic children. It illuminates emotional and societal aspects of autism parenting, emphasising the necessity for tailored support systems. Additionally, it reveals parents' coping strategies, including empowerment and supporting others, indicating increased understanding of their children's autism and active facilitation of support networks. Keywords: Well-being, Autism parenting, Autoethnography, challenges, coping. Cite as: Bakar, R. A., Ghani, K. D. A., Aziz, N. I., & Mohamad, N. H. S. (2024). Challenges and coping strategies of autism parenting: A systematic literature review of parents’ autoethnographies. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 9(2), 340-370. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol9iss2pp340-370
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 | 0.015 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".