Learning and Sharing Together to Work Better Together: Service Providers' and Parents' Perceptions of the ENVISAGE-Integrated Programme.
Alice K Soper, Marilyn Wright, Debra Hughes and 10 others
Parents and service providers reported positive experiences learning together in a 5-week online programme, describing it as levelling the playing field and helping them see each other as people.
This is a pilot of perceptions, not evidence the programme changes practice.
Key findings
1Both parents and service providers reported high agreement (medians of 4.5–4.8 on a 1-to-5 scale) with all seven statements about liking, comfort, learning, and meaningfulness of the integrated format; the Mann-Whitney tests found no significant differences between the two groups, with the smallest p-value being 0.075.
2Thematic analysis of 29 interviews generated five themes: three shared by both groups (reaffirming collaboration and relationship-building, expanding understanding of how to work together, seeing each other as people first) and two specific to one group (parents: connection and support from other parents; service providers: validation of clinical practice through alignment with parent values).
3Some parents and service providers noted that parents might feel less comfortable sharing openly with service providers present, and in some cohorts only one or two parents were in the group, limiting parent-to-parent connection.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Single site, self-selected sample of 30 from one centre; the authors note limited generalisability because participants were already interested, available, and comfortable engaging. Not powered to detect effects; the authors state they were not testing a hypothesis, so the study cannot confirm or refute whether the programme works. In some cohorts only one or two parents were present, limiting parent-to-parent connection and the balance of the integrated format. Some participants (both parents and service providers) raised the possibility that parents might feel intimidated or less comfortable sharing with service providers present. One parent and one service provider reported experiences that did not align with the generated themes, but the authors note the small number limits the depth of negative-case analysis.
Declared interests
CIHR funded the first author (PhD candidate); the Physicians' Services Incorporated (PSI) Foundation funded the project to co-develop and evaluate the programme. Authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the positive perceptions as evidence that the programme changes clinical practice or improves outcomes for children. This is a pilot of what 30 participants thought and felt about learning together at one centre; the authors state the next step is to explore whether the programme influenced perspectives and behaviours over time, and the six-month follow-up is reported separately.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →