Adapting and providing a virtual psychosocial intervention <i>, iSibWorks</i> , for siblings of youth with disabilities, a qualitative acceptability study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The objectives included: (1) Adapt the SibWorks group intervention for use on a virtual platform with siblings; and (2) Assess the acceptability of the adapted intervention, iSibWorks.Materials and Methods Participants were youth aged 8 to 12 years who had a sibling with a disability, and their caregivers. iSibWorks was implemented with siblings on a weekly basis for six weeks. Sessions were conducted using Zoom for Healthcare and lasted approximately 60 min each. One week after the final session, siblings and their caregivers were invited to participate in separate semi-structured interviews. Qualitative content analysis of interview transcripts was utilized to assess intervention acceptability.Results Adapting SibWorks to iSibWorks was achieved. Three categories were developed based on sibling and caregiver feedback. First, participants shared their satisfaction with the delivery of iSibWorks, reporting enjoyable experiences and valuing its interactive design. Next, participants perceived their involvement in the intervention as beneficial, due to opportunities to connect with others, learn applicable coping strategies, and improve self-esteem and mood. Finally, participants provided suggestions regarding the intervention’s future delivery, content, and participation.Conclusions iSibWorks is an acceptable virtual group intervention for siblings of youth with a disability. Families noted positive experiences and perceived benefits with intervention participation.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".