2020
DOI: 10.1007/s10995-020-02896-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Caregiver Health Effects of Caring for Young Children with Developmental Disabilities: A Meta-analysis

Abstract: Objectives Mothers of school age and older children with developmental disabilities experience poorer health than mothers of typically developing children. This review assesses the evidence for the effect on mothers' health of caring for young children with developmental disabilities, and the influence of different disability diagnoses and socioeconomic status. Methods Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched. Studies measuring at least one symptom, using a quantitative scale, in mothers of preschool… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

8
78
1
5

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 123 publications
(92 citation statements)
references
References 66 publications
8
78
1
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Previous studies assessing the health outcomes of mothers have either been in specific groups of children with intellectual or broader disabilities and have focused on the mental health outcomes. 8 30-34 The current findings are consistent with a recent meta-analysis that highlighted the increased risk of depressive symptoms and poorer general health of mothers of children with developmental disabilities 34 and with previous studies of the health of mothers with children with physical disabilities. 30 35 Many published studies have not differentiated between mothers of children with life-limiting or other chronic conditions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Previous studies assessing the health outcomes of mothers have either been in specific groups of children with intellectual or broader disabilities and have focused on the mental health outcomes. 8 30-34 The current findings are consistent with a recent meta-analysis that highlighted the increased risk of depressive symptoms and poorer general health of mothers of children with developmental disabilities 34 and with previous studies of the health of mothers with children with physical disabilities. 30 35 Many published studies have not differentiated between mothers of children with life-limiting or other chronic conditions.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…By combining parents into the broad categories of having children with developmental conditions, mental health problems, or neither of these problems, we lose some within-group variation that comes with the qualities of the diagnosis. For instance, Masefield et al (2020) notes that caring for children with multiple disabilities may pose the greatest risk to caregiver health, while individual disabilities may be differentially associated with specific health outcomes. Certainly, differences in diagnostic categories affects the impact of caregiving stress, as well as how stress manifests in the daily lives of parents (i.e., consistent low-level stress versus more acute stress), as well as the long-term nature of the disability.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, this type of caregiving has been associated with physiological dysregulation ( Barker et al, 2012 ; Seltzer et al, 2009 ), accelerated cognitive aging ( Song et al, 2016 ), and being more vulnerable during periods of economic downturn ( Song et al, 2018 ). In general, providing care for a child with these conditions can contribute to a feeling of chronic stress for parents ( Baxter et al, 2000 ; Masefield et al, 2020 ), which presents a particularly troubling problem, as children with such conditions are likely to reside in the home longer than their typically-developing peers ( Seltzer et al, 2001 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This choice was made to prevent bias in longitudinal studies introduced by differential dropout [87]. Third, the NOS used to assess quality has been previously used in studies [88,89] but not strictly methodologically validated. As far as we know, no other scale was available or recommended for cross sectional studies.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%