Caregiver Satisfaction with Anxiety Treatment for Autistic Youth: A Mixed Methods Examination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to best meet the specific needs of autistic youth with co-occurring anxiety and to continue to grow as a sustainable treatment option, it is important to incorporate caregiver perspectives and feedback. Data were drawn from a randomized controlled trial and included 148 caregivers of autistic youth (ages 7-13 years, M = 9.89, SD = 1.79; 23% female; 77.7% White) with co-occurring anxiety disorders randomized to one of two active treatment conditions (Coping Cat, n = 72, or Behavioral Interventions for Anxiety in Children with Autism [BIACA], n = 76). A systematic inductive thematic analysis was used to code open-ended parent responses on the Consumer Satisfaction Questionnaire to identify what caregivers of autistic children with co-occurring anxiety liked most and least about their child's treatment. Satisfaction with treatment was high (M = 64.98, SD = 5.48). Caregivers' most-liked treatment features across treatments included (a) tools and coping skills, (b) therapeutic alliance, (c) caregiver support and involvement, (d) personalized treatment, and (e) treatment efficacy. Least-liked features of treatment and family participation included (a) the commute to the clinic, (b) treatment length, (c) commitment required at home, (d) questionnaires, and (e) scheduling. Treatment responders endorsed therapeutic alliance more frequently. Caregivers in BIACA endorsed caregiver support and involvement at higher rates, in addition to commitment required at home. Caregiver responses indicated a preference for more sessions and highlighted the importance of balancing need for caregiver involvement in treatment while reducing caregiver burden.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".