8 research outputs found

    Family structure and multiple domains of child well-being in the United States: a cross-sectional study

    Get PDF
    We examine the association between family structure and children’s health care utilization, barriers to health care access, health, and schooling and cognitive outcomes and assess whether socioeconomic status (SES) accounts for those family structure differences. We advance prior research by focusing on understudied but increasingly common family structures including single father families and five different family structures that include grandparents. Our data on United States children aged birth through 17 (unweighted N = 198,864) come from the 1997–2013 waves of the National Health Interview Survey, a nationally representative, publicly available, household-based sample. We examine 17 outcomes across nine family structures, including married couple, cohabiting couple, single mother, and single father families, with and without grandparents, and skipped-generation families that include children and grandparents but not parents. The SES measures include family income, home ownership, and parents’ or grandparents’ (depending on who is in the household) employment and education. Compared to children living with married couples, children in single mother, extended single mother, and cohabiting couple families average poorer outcomes, but children in single father families sometimes average better health outcomes. The presence of grandparents in single parent, cohabiting, or married couple families does not buffer children from adverse outcomes. SES only partially explains family structure disparities in children’s well-being. All non-married couple family structures are associated with some adverse outcomes among children, but the degree of disadvantage varies across family structures. Efforts to understand and improve child well-being might be most effective if they recognize the increasing diversity in children’s living arrangements.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12963-015-0038-

    Trauma and mental health of medics in eastern Myanmar¿s conflict zones: a cross-sectional and mixed methods investigation

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background In conflict and disaster settings, medical personnel are exposed to psychological stressors that threaten their wellbeing and increase their risk of developing burnout, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. As lay medics frequently function as the primary health providers in these situations, their mental health is crucial to the delivery of services to afflicted populations. This study examines a population of community health workers in Karen State, eastern Myanmar to explore the manifestations of health providers’ psychological distress in a low-resource conflict environment. Methods Mental health screening surveys were administered to 74 medics, incorporating the 12-item general health questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the posttraumatic checklist for civilians (PCL-C). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 medics to investigate local idioms of distress, sources of distress, and the support and management of medics’ stressors. Results The GHQ-12 mean was 10.7 (SD 5.0, range 0–23) and PCL-C mean was 36.2 (SD 9.7, range 17–69). There was fair internal consistency for the GHQ-12 and PCL-C (Cronbach’s alpha coeffecients 0.74 and 0.80, respectively) and significant correlation between the two scales (Pearson’s R-correlation 0.47, P<0.001). Qualitative results revealed abundant evidence of stressors, including perceived inadequacy of skills, transportation barriers, lack of medical resources, isolation from family communities, threats of military violence including landmine injury, and early life trauma resulting from conflict and displacement. Medics also discussed mechanisms to manage stressors, including peer support, group-based and individual forms of coping. Conclusions The results suggest significant sources and manifestations of mental distress among this under-studied population. The discrepancy between qualitative evidence of abundant stressors and the comparatively low symptom scores may suggest marked mental resilience among subjects. The observed symptom score means in contrast with the qualitative evidence of abundant stressors may suggest the development of marked mental resilience among subjects. Alternatively, the discrepancy may reflect the inadequacy of standard screening tools not validated for this population and potential cultural inappropriateness of established diagnostic frameworks. The importance of peer-group support as a protective factor suggests that interventions might best serve healthworkers in conflict areas by emphasizing community- and team-based strategies

    Trauma and mental health of medics in eastern Myanmar’s conflict zones: a cross-sectional and mixed methods investigation

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: In conflict and disaster settings, medical personnel are exposed to psychological stressors that threaten their wellbeing and increase their risk of developing burnout, depression, anxiety, and PTSD. As lay medics frequently function as the primary health providers in these situations, their mental health is crucial to the delivery of services to afflicted populations. This study examines a population of community health workers in Karen State, eastern Myanmar to explore the manifestations of health providers’ psychological distress in a low-resource conflict environment. METHODS: Mental health screening surveys were administered to 74 medics, incorporating the 12-item general health questionnaire (GHQ-12) and the posttraumatic checklist for civilians (PCL-C). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 30 medics to investigate local idioms of distress, sources of distress, and the support and management of medics’ stressors. RESULTS: The GHQ-12 mean was 10.7 (SD 5.0, range 0–23) and PCL-C mean was 36.2 (SD 9.7, range 17–69). There was fair internal consistency for the GHQ-12 and PCL-C (Cronbach’s alpha coeffecients 0.74 and 0.80, respectively) and significant correlation between the two scales (Pearson’s R-correlation 0.47, P<0.001). Qualitative results revealed abundant evidence of stressors, including perceived inadequacy of skills, transportation barriers, lack of medical resources, isolation from family communities, threats of military violence including landmine injury, and early life trauma resulting from conflict and displacement. Medics also discussed mechanisms to manage stressors, including peer support, group-based and individual forms of coping. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest significant sources and manifestations of mental distress among this under-studied population. The discrepancy between qualitative evidence of abundant stressors and the comparatively low symptom scores may suggest marked mental resilience among subjects. The observed symptom score means in contrast with the qualitative evidence of abundant stressors may suggest the development of marked mental resilience among subjects. Alternatively, the discrepancy may reflect the inadequacy of standard screening tools not validated for this population and potential cultural inappropriateness of established diagnostic frameworks. The importance of peer-group support as a protective factor suggests that interventions might best serve healthworkers in conflict areas by emphasizing community- and team-based strategies

    Bibliography

    No full text
    corecore