Stress among caregivers of autistic children: Conceptual analysis and verification using two qualitative datasets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this two-part study, we first present the results of a sub-analysis of empirical data from a large grounded theory study of caregivers' (parents) navigating autism-related care. The purpose of this analysis was to develop a conceptual overview of stress and crisis. We then describe the results and feasibility of using a framework analysis approach to verify and extend this conceptual analysis using qualitative survey data from a comparable population. Finally, we compare the conceptual findings to existing stress theory. While the grounded theory analysis was not aimed at producing a full theory of stress, multiple key elements of the resulting conceptual overview are consistent with prior stress theory. A potentially novel contribution is the conceptualization of social-psychological stress as an evolving process metaphorically analogous to a physiological model of stress that accurately fitted caregivers' experience. Specifically, it accounts for early empowering consequences of stress in terms of caregivers' motivation and capacity for action, the progressive destructive consequences in terms of its effects on caregivers' emotional and even physical well-being, and the evolving and nonlinear process of stress over the life course. The definition for crisis, meanwhile, acknowledges that different systems can be in crisis from the caregiver's perspective, and that it can be triggered by progressive buildups of stress and not just acute major triggering events. The insights from this analysis have implications for improving support professionals' sensitivity to the empirical caregiver-perspective realities of stress at a conceptual level, and for improving assessment of crisis specifically in this population. The framework analysis exercise demonstrated some utility of the qualitative survey data for verifying and extending this theoretical analysis, despite the limitations compared to in-depth interview data discussed. This has implications for improving the utilization of qualitative data often collected in survey research.
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 | 0.031 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".