| Literature DB >> 36084129 |
Sang-Hwa Lee1, Dong-Hee Kim2, Kyoungrim Kang2.
Abstract
Mothers-in-law in multicultural families tend to experience psychological burden. This study aimed to verify the effects of the cultural adaptation promotion resilience program (CAPRP) on resilience, acculturation stress, depression, and quality of life among mothers-in-law in multi-cultural families. Forty-two participants from multicultural family support centres in the metropolitan city A were assigned to either the intervention group or the control group. The CAPRP was performed for 60 minutes, twice a week for four weeks. The intervention group showed a significant decrease in the acculturation stress (p = .002), and depression (p = .006), while resilience (p < .001) and quality of life (p < .001) significantly increased compared to the control group. The intervention group reported significant improvements in resilience, acculturation stress, depression, and quality of life in comparison with the control group. The results indicated that the CAPRP, developed based on positive cognitive appraisal, was an efficient nursing intervention for mothers-in-law in multicultural families.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36084129 PMCID: PMC9462712 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274224
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.752
Fig 1Study design.
Cultural adaptation promotion resilience program.
| Sessions | Subjects | Contents | Strategies | Activities |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Self-opening | Open mind | Opening the mind by positive image about oneself | Making name tags, greeting |
| Building intimacy | Building a comradeship by closeness action | Give nickname, handshake / hugging | ||
| Building supportive relationships through shared experience | Expressing experience after receiving foreign daughters-in-law | Presentation of own experience, support | ||
| 2 | Causal analysis | To recognise cultural differences | Understanding diversity of views | Lecture, drawing a person that everybody knows |
| Meaning of difference | Looking for cause by using cases | Lecture and case utilising of picture materials like ‘two people with same clothes & number matching’ | ||
| Understanding cultural differences between countries | Checking the culture of daughter-in-law | Lecture | ||
| 3 | Impulse control | Awareness of one’s uncontrollable impulses | Expressing experience of impulsive behaviours | Watching an impulsive behaviour video, watching impulsive behaviour-health related video |
| Understanding of impulse | Understanding connection of impulsive behaviour and background belief | ABC theory lecture | ||
| Training of impulse control | Learning conflict-controlled method | Meditation, drawing mandala, tearing a piece of paper | ||
| 4 | Emotion regulation | Awareness of one’s uncontrollable emotions | Recognition difficult situations of own emotion control | Watching a video of emotion explosion |
| Experiencing or feeling the uncontrolled emotion of daughters-in-law side | Taking the stance of daughter-in-law | Role play | ||
| Training of emotion control | Relaxing, Singing | Meditation, singing | ||
| 5 | Empathy | Recognising own ineffective communication | Expressing experiences | Presentation |
| Understanding the sympathy | Learning sympathetic posture and attitude and efficient communication | Lecture, dialogue picture | ||
| Practicing sympathy | Practicing efficient communication | Role play, writing postcard | ||
| 6 | Sense of optimism | Confirming negative attitude and belief about the situation of one’s stress | Expressing experiences | Presentation, writing on the blackboard |
| Understanding the positive and negative expression | Understanding an influence of expression | Watching a video of the power of words, discussion | ||
| Learning optimistic attitude and belief (positiveness training) | Case study, Correcting expression | Watching a video of person who overcame to crisis | ||
| 7 | Utilisation of strengths | Exploring the social resource | Introducing resources of multiple cultures | Lecture |
| Exploring personal resources | Finding personal emotion | Presentation, discussion, activity paper | ||
| Using the emotion resource | Planning utilisation of emotion | Presentation |
Homogeneity test of general characteristics for two group (N = 42).
| Characteristics | Categories | Exp.(n = 21) | Cont.(n = 21) | x2 or t |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n (%) or M±SD | n (%) or M±SD | ||||
|
| 68.48±4.09 | 70.10±5.06 | 1.16 | .288 | |
| ≤65 | 7(33.3) | 4(19.0) | 1.14 | .567 | |
| 66∼70 | 7(33.4) | 9(42.9) | |||
| ≥71 | 7(33.3) | 8(38.1) | |||
|
| Married | 11(52.4) | 9(42.9) | 0.38* | .379 |
| Others (single, divorced) | 10(47.6) | 12(57.1) | |||
|
| None | 6(28.6) | 3(14.3) | -0.21 | .834 |
| Elementary | 9(42.8) | 15(71.4) | |||
| ≥Middle school | 6(28.6) | 3(14.3) | |||
|
| Have not | 6(28.6) | 9(42.9) | 0.93* | .520 |
| Have | 15(71.4) | 12(57.1) | |||
|
| Low | 3(14.3) | 7(33.3) | 2.10* | .139 |
| ≥Moderate | 18(85.7) | 14(66.7) | |||
|
| Poor | 8(38.1) | 9(42.8) | 0.44 | .804 |
| Moderate | 8(38.1) | 6(28.6) | |||
| Good | 5(23.8) | 6(28.6) | |||
|
| Have not | 7(33.3) | 7(33.3) | 0.00* | 1.000 |
| Have | 14(66.7) | 14(66.7) | |||
|
| No | 9(42.9) | 10(47.6) | 0.10* | .500 |
| Yes | 12(57.1) | 11(52.4) | |||
|
| Moderate and low | 11(52.4) | 11(52.4) | 0.00* | 1.000 |
| High | 10(47.6) | 10(47.6) | |||
|
| Vietnam | 19(90.5) | 13(69.1) | -2.15 | .032 |
| Others | 2(9.5) | 8(30.9) | |||
|
| <3 | 11(52.4) | 10(47.6) | 0.10* | 1.000 |
| ≧3 | 10(47.6) | 11(52.4) | |||
|
| Low | 8(38.1) | 6(28.6) | 1.05 | .593 |
| Moderate | 5(23.8) | 8(38.1) | |||
| High | 8(38.1) | 7(33.3) | |||
|
| Moderate & dissatisfaction | 11(52.4) | 8(38.1) | 0.87* | .268 |
| Satisfaction | 10(47.6) | 13(61.9) | |||
|
| Disagree | 2(9.5) | 4(19.0) | -1.89 | .058 |
| Somehow | 9(42.9) | 13(61.9) | |||
| Agree | 10(47.6) | 4(19.0) |
Homogeneity test of dependent variables for two group (N = 42).
| Variables | Inv.(n = 21) | Cont.(n = 21) |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M±SD | M±SD | |||
|
| 62.05±12.61 | 64.57±14.34 | -0.61 | .548 |
|
| 32.29±6.41 | 28.76±11.70 | 1.21 | .235 |
|
| 5.33±3.22 | 6.00±3.98 | -0.60 | .175 |
|
| 74.62±12.06 | 71.33±14.90 | 0.79 | .553 |
Inv. = Intervention group; Cont. = Control group.
Differences in variables for intervention and control groups (N = 42).
| Variables | Categories | Inv.(n = 21) | Cont.(n = 21) |
|
| Cohen’s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M±SD | M±SD | |||||
|
| Pretest | 62.05±12.61 | 64.57±14.34 | -2.52 | .548 | 1.25 (8.78 26.37) |
| Posttest | 83.29±16.37 | 68.24±15.87 | 15.05 | .004 | ||
| Difference | 21.24±19.57 | 3.67±3.84 | 4.04 | < .001 | ||
|
| Pretest | 32.29±6.41 | 28.76±11.70 | 3.52 | .235 | -1.12 (-11.64–3.31) |
| Posttest | 25.10±9.41 | 29.05±11.27 | -3.95 | .224 | ||
| Difference | -7.19±9.28 | 0.29±1.71 | -3.63 | .002 | ||
|
| Pretest | 5.33±3.22 | 6.00±3.98 | -0.67 | .553 | -0.94 (-3.88–0.78) |
| Posttest | 3.00±2.51 | 6.00±3.76 | -3.00 | .004 | ||
| Difference | -2.33±3.41 | 0.00±0.84 | -3.05 | .006 | ||
|
| Pretest | 74.62±12.06 | 71.33±14.90 | 3.29 | .437 | 1.53 (8.82 20.99) |
| Posttest | 95.52±16.26 | 77.33±19.62 | 18.19 | .002 | ||
| Difference | 20.90±11.59 | 6.00±7.50 | 4.95 | < .001 |
Inv. = Intervention group; Cont. = Control group.