A mindful parenting program for self-care co-occupation of autistic children on parental outcomes: a feasibility pilot randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) evaluated the feasibility and exploratory effects of a mindful parenting participation program integrated into occupational therapy (OT) to enhance parental engagement in the self-care co-occupation of autistic children. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty parent-child dyads were randomly assigned to the intervention (mindfulness-based training + conventional OT) or the comparison groups (conventional OT). The two-month intervention was followed by assessments immediately post-intervention and at two months. Outcomes were measured using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), Mindfulness in Parenting Questionnaire (MIPQ), Parenting Stress Index (PSI), and CAPES-DD for parental self-efficacy. RESULTS: Feasibility was confirmed, with high rates of acceptability (87.5%), attendance (75%), compliance (75%), and fidelity. The intervention group showed preliminary and exploratory improvement in parental satisfaction with the child's self-care co-occupation compared to the control group, with a clinically meaningful change (SMD: 2.1 at the post-test, 1.4 at the follow-up). Improvements were also observed in mindful parenting and parenting stress. Parental self-efficacy showed delayed gains, becoming comparable at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Embedding mindfulness into parenting co-occupations is feasible and potentially beneficial in improving parental satisfaction and psychological well-being. Future studies with larger samples and longer follow-up are warranted.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".