BACKGROUND: The Family APGAR has been widely used to study the relationship of family function and health problems in family practice offices. METHODS: Data were collected from 401 pediatricians and family physicians from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings network and the Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network. The physicians enrolled 22,059 consecutive office visits by children aged 4 to 15 years. Parents completed a survey that included the Family APGAR and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Clinicians completed a survey that described child psychosocial problems, treatments initiated or continued, and specialty care referrals. RESULTS: Family dysfunction on the index visit often differed from dysfunction at follow-up (kappa=0.24). Only 31% of the families with positive Family APGAR scores at baseline were positive at follow-up, and only 43% of those with positive scores at follow-up had a positive score at the initial visit. There were many disagreements between the Family APGAR and the clinician. The Family APGAR was negative for 73% of clinician-identified dysfunctional families, and clinicians did not identify dysfunction for 83% of Family APGAR-identified dysfunctions (kappa=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the use of the Family APGAR as a measure of family dysfunction in the primary care setting. Future research should clarify what it does measure.
BACKGROUND: The Family APGAR has been widely used to study the relationship of family function and health problems in family practice offices. METHODS: Data were collected from 401 pediatricians and family physicians from the Pediatric Research in Office Settings network and the Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network. The physicians enrolled 22,059 consecutive office visits by children aged 4 to 15 years. Parents completed a survey that included the Family APGAR and the Pediatric Symptom Checklist. Clinicians completed a survey that described child psychosocial problems, treatments initiated or continued, and specialty care referrals. RESULTS: Family dysfunction on the index visit often differed from dysfunction at follow-up (kappa=0.24). Only 31% of the families with positive Family APGAR scores at baseline were positive at follow-up, and only 43% of those with positive scores at follow-up had a positive score at the initial visit. There were many disagreements between the Family APGAR and the clinician. The Family APGAR was negative for 73% of clinician-identified dysfunctional families, and clinicians did not identify dysfunction for 83% of Family APGAR-identified dysfunctions (kappa=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the use of the Family APGAR as a measure of family dysfunction in the primary care setting. Future research should clarify what it does measure.
Authors: Cynthia Sau Ting Wu; Ho Ting Wong; Kin Fai Yu; Ka Wing Fok; Sheung Man Yeung; Cheuk Ho Lam; Ka Man Liu Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: María Del Carmen Pérez-Fuentes; María Del Mar Molero Jurado; Ana Belén Barragán Martín; José Jesús Gázquez Linares Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Carolina Gonzálvez; Ángela Díaz-Herrero; Ricardo Sanmartín; María Vicent; Antonio M Pérez-Sánchez; José M García-Fernández Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-10-03 Impact factor: 3.390