Parent perceptions of an adapted evidence-based practice for toddlers with autism in a community setting

Abstract

Although data from parent-implemented Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions have shown positive effects on decreasing core symptoms of autism, there has been limited examination of the effectiveness of Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Interventions in community settings. In addition, parent perspectives of their involvement in parent-implemented early intervention programs have not been well studied. Using both qualitative and quantitative data to examine parent perspectives and the perceived feasibility of parent training by community providers, 13 families were followed as they received training in the Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Intervention, Project ImPACT. Data indicate that parent training by community providers is feasible and well received, and parents find value in participating in intervention and perceive benefit for their children. Recommendations for adaptation of program elements and future research are discussed.

Health coaching for parents of children with developmental disabilities: a systematic review

“…The methodological quality of non‐RCTs was (in descending order) low in 11 studies, and fair in four quality studies (Table SIII, online supporting information) . All but four studies described and followed the inclusion and exclusion criteria .…”

“…Overall, 13 RCTs (including one follow-up report) 9,17-26,42-44 and 15 non-RCTs were selected for this review (Table SI, online supporting information). [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Included RCTs and non-RCTs were published between 1988 and 2017 and between 2002 and 2018 respectively. Countries of publication for RCTs included (in descending order): the USA (n=4), 17,18,20,43 Australia (n=3), 21,22,26 Hong Kong (n=2), 9,25 the UK (n=2), 24,44 the Netherlands (n=1), 42 and Japan (n=1).…”

“…Countries of publication for RCTs included (in descending order): the USA (n=4), 17,18,20,43 Australia (n=3), 21,22,26 Hong Kong (n=2), 9,25 the UK (n=2), 24,44 the Netherlands (n=1), 42 and Japan (n=1). 23 Countries of publication for non-RCTs included (in descending order): the USA (n=5), 28,31,32,37,41 Australia (n=4), 27,29,30,36 the UK (n=2), 34,35 India (n=1), 33 Hong Kong (n=1), 38 Iran (n=1), 39 and China (n=1). 40 The methodological quality of the RCTs was (in descending order) high in nine, 9,17,18,20,22,23,25,26,42 fair in two, 21,43 and low in two (Table SII, online supporting information).…”

“…The methodological quality of non-RCTs was (in descending order) low in 11 studies, [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34]36,40,41 and fair in four quality studies (Table SIII, online supporting information). 35,[37][38][39] All but four studies described and followed the inclusion and exclusion criteria. [27][28][29]41 All but two studies described the intervention and adherence to the intervention assignment.…”

“…In terms of the person providing the coaching intervention, among studies that specified this information, 84% employed a trained and accredited healthcare professional (e.g. psychologist), 9,20,21,23,25,27,28,[32][33][34][35]37,[41][42][43] 12% involved graduate students in the field of psychology and/or occupational therapy, 18,19,22,30 and only one study (i.e. 5%) included mothers of children with ASD to act as coaches to other participating parents receiving the intervention.…”