↓ Skip to main content

Stigma, explanatory models and unmet needs of caregivers of children with developmental disorders in a low-income African country: a cross-sectional facility-based survey

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
101 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
381 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Stigma, explanatory models and unmet needs of caregivers of children with developmental disorders in a low-income African country: a cross-sectional facility-based survey
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, April 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1383-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dejene Tilahun, Charlotte Hanlon, Abebaw Fekadu, Bethlehem Tekola, Yonas Baheretibeb, Rosa A. Hoekstra

Abstract

Understanding the perspectives of caregivers of children with developmental disorders living in low-income countries is important to inform intervention programmes. The purpose of this study was to examine the stigma experiences, explanatory models, unmet needs, preferred interventions and coping mechanisms of caregivers of children with developmental disorders in Ethiopia. Participants comprised caregivers (n = 102) of children with developmental disorders attending two child mental health clinics in Addis Ababa. The majority (66.7 %; n = 68) had a diagnosis of intellectual disability (ID); 34 children (33.3 %) had autism spectrum disorder (ASD) as their primary diagnosis. All caregivers were administered a structured questionnaire via a face-to-face interview, which included an adaptation of the Family Interview Schedule, closed questions about socio-demographic characteristics, explanatory models of illness, type of interventions used or desired and coping strategies, and an open ended question regarding the family's unmet needs. Most caregivers reported experience of stigma: 43.1 % worried about being treated differently, 45.1 % felt ashamed about their child's condition and 26.7 % made an effort to keep their child's condition secret. Stigma did not depend on the type of developmental disorder, the child's age or gender, or on the age or level of education of the caregiver (all p > 0.05). Reported stigma was significantly higher in caregivers who had sought traditional help (p < 0.01), provided supernatural explanations for their child's condition (p = .02) and in caregivers of Orthodox Christian faith (p = .03). Caregivers gave a mixture of biomedical explanations (e.g. head injury (30.4 %) or birth complications (25.5 %)) and supernatural explanations (e.g. spirit possession (40.2 %) or sinful act (27.5 %)) for their child's condition. The biggest reported unmet need was educational provision for their child (74.5 %), followed by treatment by a health professional (47.1 %), financial support (30.4 %) and expert help to support their child's development (27.5 %). Most caregivers reported that talking to health professionals (86.3 %) and family (85.3 %) helped them to cope. Many caregivers also used support from friends (76.5 %) and prayer (57.8 %) as coping mechanisms. This study highlights the stigma experienced by families caring for a child with a developmental disorder. Designing interventions appropriate for low-income settings that improve awareness about developmental disorders, decrease stigma, improve access to appropriate education and strengthen caregivers' support are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 381 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Unknown 380 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 74 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 13%
Researcher 41 11%
Student > Bachelor 37 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 36 9%
Other 54 14%
Unknown 89 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 77 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 49 13%
Social Sciences 47 12%
Arts and Humanities 9 2%
Other 36 9%
Unknown 107 28%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 April 2016.
All research outputs
#2,930,515
of 7,615,205 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#1,224
of 2,864 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,575
of 267,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#33
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,615,205 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 61st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,864 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.