| Literature DB >> 35265030 |
Wenjing Wei1, Rongrong Yang1, Jie Zhang1, Haili Chen1, Jinghua Ye2, Qiru Su3, Jianxiang Liao2, Zhitian Xiao2.
Abstract
Purpose: This study was designed to assess the effects of epilepsy severity, family resilience, and social support on depression in primary caregivers of children with epilepsy (CWE), and to test the mediating roles of family resilience and social support in this relationship. Method: Two hundred fifty-two caregivers of children with epilepsy were recruited from October 2020 to May 2021. The questionnaire contained sociodemographic characteristics, Epilepsy Severity, Chinese-Family Resilience Assessment Scale (C-FRAS), Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Structural equation models were used to evaluate whether family resilience and social support as mediators between epilepsy severity and depression.Entities:
Keywords: caregivers; children with epilepsy; depression; family; resilience; social support
Year: 2022 PMID: 35265030 PMCID: PMC8899194 DOI: 10.3389/fneur.2022.831899
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Neurol ISSN: 1664-2295 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1The hypothesized model concerning the relationship between epilepsy severity and depression: family resilience and social support as mediators.
Descriptive statistics for sociodemographic characteristics and depression (N = 252).
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Child gender | Male | 144 (57.1) |
| Female | 108 (42.9) | |
| Age of children | ≤ 3 | 88 (34.9) |
| (years old) | 3–6 | 56 (22.2) |
| 7–14 | 108 (42.9) | |
| Principal caregiver | Mother | 201 (79.8) |
| Father | 51 (20.2) | |
| Residence | Countryside | 48 (19.0) |
| Suburban | 27 (10.7) | |
| City | 177 (70.2) | |
| Occupation | Employed | 152 (60.3) |
| Unemployed | 100 (39.7) | |
| Religion | Yes | 26 (10.3) |
| No | 226 (89.7) | |
| Monthly family income | <5,000 | 27 (10.7) |
| (Yuan) | 5,000–10,000 | 70 (27.8) |
| 10,000–15,000 | 53 (21.0) | |
| >15,000 | 102 (40.5) | |
| Education | High school or below | 92 (36.5) |
| Undergraduate | 150 (59.5) | |
| Graduate or above | 10 (4.0) | |
| Medical expenses payment | Urban basic medical insurance | 145 (57.5) |
| New rural cooperative medical insurance | 57 (22.6) | |
| Self-paying and others | 50(19.8) | |
| Depression | Mild | 92(36.5) |
| Moderate | 45(17.8) | |
| Severe | 39(15.5) |
Description statistics and correlations among the study variables (N = 252).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Epilepsy severity | 9 | 5.55 ± 2.07 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 2. C-FRAS | 44 | 134.96 ± 16.65 | −0.247 | 1 | |||||||||
| 3. FCPS | 27 | 85.70 ± 11.12 | −0.227 | 0.967 | 1 | ||||||||
| 4. USR | 8 | 21.73 ± 3.50 | −0.217 | 0.713 | 0.561 | 1 | |||||||
| 5. MPO | 6 | 18.23 ± 3.03 | −0.210 | 0.831 | 0.732 | 0.519 | 1 | ||||||
| 6. AMMA | 3 | 9.30 ± 1.25 | −0.148 | 0.714 | 0.634 | 0.442 | 0.676 | 1 | |||||
| 7. Social support | 10 | 38.69 ± 6.04 | −0.221 | 0.477 | 0.440 | 0.418 | 0.384 | 0.336 | 1 | ||||
| 8. OS | 4 | 21.73 ± 3.94 | −0.078 | 0.254 | 0.258 | 0.156 | 0.198 | 0.167 | 0.658 | 1 | |||
| 9. SS | 3 | 10.18 ± 2.50 | −0.252 | 0.468 | 0.420 | 0.438 | 0.394 | 0.314 | 0.852 | 0.254 | 1 | ||
| 10. US | 3 | 6.78 ± 1.68 | −0.085 | 0.237 | 0.211 | 0.240 | 0.161 | 0.220 | 0.614 | 0.281 | 0.335 | 1 | |
| 11. Depression | 21 | 10.96 ± 9.25 | 0.374 | −0.385 | −0.373 | −0.290 | −0.296 | −0.284 | −0.404 | −0.199 | −0.377 | −0.268 | 1 |
p < 0.01;
p < 0.05.
C-FRAS, Chinese-Family Resilience Assessment Scale; FCPS, Family Communication and Problem Solving; USR, Utilizing Social and economic Resources; MPO, Maintaining a Positive Outlook; AMMA, Ability to Make Meaning of Adversity; OS, Objective Support; SS, Subjective Support; US, Utilization of Support; SD, standard deviation.
Figure 2Structural equation model of epilepsy severity, family resilience, social support, and depression. *p < 0.01, ** p < 0.001. FCPS, USR, MPO, AMMA, four parcels of family resilience; FCPS, Family Communication, and Problem Solving; USR, Utilizing Social and economic Resources; MPO, Maintaining a Positive Outlook; AMMA, Ability to Make Meaning of Adversity; ST, SF, NASM, three parcels of epilepsy severity; ST, Seizure Type; SF, Seizures Frequency; NASM, number of anti-seizure medications; OS, SS, US, three parcels of social support; OS, objective support; SS, subjective support; US, utilization of support; One, Two, Three, three parcels of depression using random assignment approach.
The model path diagram, total indirect effect, total effect analysis of the four concepts.
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Epilepsy severity -> Family resilience->Depression | 0.023 | 0.034 | 0.379 | −0.042 | 0.094 | 5.44% |
| Epilepsy severity->Social support->Depression | 0.065 | 0.055 | 0.070 | −0.006 | 0.220 | 15.37% |
| Epilepsy severity->Family resilience->Social support ->Depression | 0.069 | 0.035 | 0.001 | 0.025 | 0.176 | 16.31% |
| Epilepsy severity->Depression | 0.266 | 0.100 | 0.010 | 0.064 | 0.458 | 62.88% |
| Total indirect effect | 0.157 | 0.061 | 0.001 | 0.073 | 0.319 | 37.12% |
| Total effect | 0.423 | 0.084 | <0.001 | 0.252 | 0.585 | |