Literature DB >> 22515566

What parents find important in the support of a child with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities.

S L G Jansen1, A A J van der Putten, C Vlaskamp.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The importance of a partnership between parents and professionals in the support of children with disabilities is widely acknowledged and is one of the key elements of 'family-centred care'. To what extent family-centred principles are also applied to the support of persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD) is not yet known. AIM: The purpose of this exploratory study was to examine what parents with a child with PIMD find important in the support of their child. In addition, we examined which child or parent characteristics influence these parental opinions.
METHOD: In total, 100 parents completed an adapted version of the Measure of Processes of Care. Mean unweighted and weighted scale scores were computed. Non-parametric tests were used to examine differences in ratings due to child (gender, age, type and number of additional disabilities, type of services used and duration of service use) and parent characteristics (gender, involvement with support and educational level).
RESULTS: Parents rated situations related to 'Respectful and Supportive Care' and 'Enabling and Partnership' with averages of 7.07 and 6.87 respectively on a scale from 1 to 10. They were generally satisfied with the services provided, expressed in a mean score of 6.88 overall. The age of the child significantly affected the scores for 'Providing Specific Information about the Child'. Parents of children in the '6-12 years' age group gave significantly higher scores on this scale than did parents of children in the '≥17 years' age group (U = 288, r = -0.34).
CONCLUSION: This study shows that parents with children with PIMD find family-centred principles in the professional support of their children important. Although the majority of parents are satisfied with the support provided for their children, a substantial minority of the parents indicated that they did not receive the support they find important.
© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22515566     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2012.01381.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Child Care Health Dev        ISSN: 0305-1862            Impact factor:   2.508


  6 in total

Review 1.  Variables related to the quality of life of families that have a child with severe to profound intellectual disabilities: A systematic review.

Authors:  N Luitwieler; J Luijkx; M Salavati; C P Van der Schans; A J Van der Putten; A Waninge
Journal:  Heliyon       Date:  2021-06-24

2.  An estimation of the prevalence of intellectual disabilities and its association with age in rural and urban populations in India.

Authors:  Ram Lakhan; Olúgbémiga T Ekúndayò; Mohammad Shahbazi
Journal:  J Neurosci Rural Pract       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec

3.  Psychiatric Morbidity, Perceived Stress and Ways of Coping Among Parents of Children With Intellectual Disability in Lahore, Pakistan.

Authors:  Muhammad H Sheikh; Sania Ashraf; Nazish Imran; Sadia Hussain; Muhammad W Azeem
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2018-02-16

4.  Determinants of caregiver satisfaction with child neurodevelopmental assessment in neuropaediatric clinics.

Authors:  Katarina Smejda Kjærandsen; Per Håkan Brøndbo; Marianne Berg Halvorsen
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2021-02-12       Impact factor: 2.655

5.  Examining perceptions of a communication course for parents of children with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities.

Authors:  Anna Rensfeldt Flink; Jakob Åsberg Johnels; Malin Broberg; Gunilla Thunberg
Journal:  Int J Dev Disabil       Date:  2020-02-07

6.  The perspectives of professional caregivers on quality of life of persons with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities: a qualitative study.

Authors:  A M Nieuwenhuijse; D L Willems; J B van Goudoever; E Olsman
Journal:  Int J Dev Disabil       Date:  2020-03-14
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.