| Literature DB >> 26898213 |
Francesc Malagelada1, Sadia Mayet2, Greg Firth2, Manoj Ramachandran3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With the Ponseti treatment method established as the gold standard, children with clubfeet face a prolonged treatment regime that might impact on their families. We aimed to determine how Ponseti treatment influences the lives of parents and caregivers and what coping strategies they use. Secondarily, we aimed to identify any potential differences between two urban referral centres for clubfoot.Entities:
Keywords: Clubfoot; Congenital talipes equinovarus; Coping; Ponseti; Social support; Stress
Year: 2016 PMID: 26898213 PMCID: PMC4837169 DOI: 10.1007/s11832-016-0719-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Child Orthop ISSN: 1863-2521 Impact factor: 1.548
Demographics
| Characteristic | UK ( | SA ( | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, months (range) | 24.8 (4−59) | 26.2 (4–63) | 24.8 (4–63) |
| Male sex, no. (%) | 30 (60) | 48 (74) | 78 (68) |
| Side, no. (%) | |||
| Right | 9 (18) | 25 (38) | 34 (30) |
| Left | 15 (30) | 14 (32) | 29 (25) |
| Bilateral | 26 (52) | 26 (40) | 52 (45) |
| Carer working status, no. (%) | |||
| Both working | 15 (30) | 13 (20) | 28 (24) |
| One working | 28 (56) | 46 (71) | 74 (64) |
| None working | 7 (14) | 6 (9) | 13 (12) |
| First-born, no. (%) | 23 (46) | 23 (35) | 46 (40) |
| Siblings, mean no. (range) | 1.3 (0–5) | 1.0 (0–4) | 1.1 (0–5) |
| Family history of CTEV, no. (%)a | 5 (10) | 10 (15) | 15 (13) |
| Associated comorbidities, no. (%) | 7 (14) | 0 (0) | 7 (6) |
UK United Kingdom, SA South Africa, M:F male:female, CTEV congenital talipes equinovarus
aIncluding direct family: parents, grandparents or siblings
Ponseti treatment method
| Characteristic | UK ( | SA ( | Total ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of casts (range) | 6.49 (2–12) | 8.7 (1–24) | 7.7 (1–24) |
| TA tenotomy, no. (%) | 27 (54) | 58 (89) | 85 (74) |
| Pirani score at diagnosis (range)a | 4.73 (2–6) | 4.50 (1–6) | 4.59 (1–6) |
| Pirani score at latest follow-up (range)a | 0.11 (0–1.5) | 0.17 (0–2.5) | 0.14 (0–2.5) |
| Difficulties during treatment, no. (%) | 18 (36) | 9 (14) | 27 (24) |
| Intolerance/PS, no. (%) | 6 (12) | 0 (0) | 6 (5) |
| Non-compliance, no. (%) | 4 (8) | 1 (2) | 5 (4) |
| Recurrence, no. (%) | 8 (16) | 8 (12) | 16 (14) |
UK United Kingdom, SA South Africa, PS pressure sores, TA Tendo Achilles
aIn bilateral cases the highest score was considered
Families’ deprivation/income
| Percentile | UK, | SA, |
|---|---|---|
| 25th | 35 (70) | 20 (32) |
| 50th | 11 (22) | 28 (43) |
| 75th | 3 (6) | 15 (23) |
| 100th | 1 (2) | 2 (2) |
|
| 50 | 65 |
Number and percentage of families within each percentile range for United Kingdom (UK) and South Africa (SA). Lower percentiles indicate higher deprivation or lower income
aDeprivation taken from the Indices of Deprivation 2010 of all neighbourhoods in England. Source: Office for National Statistics. Lower figures indicate higher deprivation [17]
bHousehold incomes in 2008 from the National Income Dynamic Survey (NIDS) [18]
Results of questionnaires
| Questionnaire | UK population | SA population | Total |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IOFS casting (range) | 29.0 (15–54) | 29.6 (15–52) | 29.3 (15–54) | 0.746 |
| IOFS bracing (range) | 26.7 (15–53) | 28.6 (15–57) | 27.7 (15–57) | 0.281 |
|
| 0.247 | 0.434 | 0.226 | |
| MSPSS casting (range) | 62.1 (21–84) | 70.5 (41–84) | 66.9 (21–84) |
|
| MSPSS bracing (range) | 62.9 (22–84) | 70.8 (42–91) | 67.3 (22–91) |
|
|
| 0.543 | 0.755 | 0.813 |
Statistically significant p values are in bold (p < 0.05)
UK United Kingdom, SA South Africa, IOFS Impact on Family Scale, MSPSS Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support
p values: A comparison of the means of UK versus SA population, B comparison of the means of IOFS during casting versus bracing periods, C comparison of the means of MSPSS during casting versus bracing periods
Fig. 1Results of the Brief COPE and level of coping strategies used during the casting phase (a) and the bracing phase (b) amongst the two populations. UK United Kingdom, SA South Africa, SD self distraction, AC active coping, D denial, SU substance use, ES emotional support, I instrumental, BD behavioural disengagement, V venting, PR positive reframing, P planning, A acceptance, R Religion, SB self blame, H humour. c Comparison of the strategies used between the two populations and statistical significance at each phase of treatment