↓ Skip to main content
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
198 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.
Article details
Title
Identifying environmental barriers to participation: Usability of a health‐literacy informed problem‐identification approach for parents of young children with developmental disabilities
Published in
Child: Care, Health & Development, December 2017
DOI 10.1111/cch.12542
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Parents of very young children recently diagnosed with developmental disabilities (DD) need to identify environmental barriers to their children's participation and adopt an adaptive orientation to solving these problems. Given the health service disparities for diverse families, parents may benefit from easy to use problem-identification approaches that address environmental barriers stemming from community and policy contexts. This feasibility study evaluated the usability of a health literacy-informed, structured, environment-focused problem-identification approach for parents of young children with DD. We used purposeful, convenience sampling to enrol 9 mothers of children ages 1-3 with DD (4 racial/ethnic minorities, 3 high school education, 4 annual household income <$20,000). We developed a structured problem-identification approach guided by a social ecological model featuring home, community, and policy contexts. The approach was applied to 3 short stories during a narrative elicitation interview. Two researchers independently coded parent responses for the type of barrier and solution identified with and without the approach. Parents identified 121 environmental barriers without the approach. When using the approach and prompted to consider home, community, and policy barriers, parents identified an additional 222 environmental barriers; the greatest number of barriers were aligned with International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-Children and Youth environment Chapter 5 "Services, systems, and policies." Using the approach, parents with a postgraduate education and annual household income >$80,000 identified the most environmental barriers, and parents reporting the lowest annual household incomes identified the fewest environmental barriers. When parents attributed participation challenges to an environmental barrier, ~57% of solutions required parents to interact with individuals at the community or policy level. This study suggests that parents with a range of background characteristics can use a structured, environment-focused problem-identification approach. With the approach, parents are more likely to attribute participation challenges to environmental barriers and adopt a problem-solving orientation focused on changes to the community and policy context. Key Messages In this study, the structured, environment-focused problem-identification approach led parents to identify additional environmental barriers, particularly policy barriers, which they did not consider during independent problem identification. Parents with previous exposure to professionals who helped identify and resolve environmental barriers to their children's participation may most benefit from the structured, environment-focused problem-identification approach. Parents' ability to attribute participation restrictions to environmental barriers is linked to parents' orientation to solving participation challenges using community and policy level solutions.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 198 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 12%
Student > Master 23 12%
Researcher 17 9%
Student > Bachelor 16 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 15 8%
Other 34 17%
Unknown 69 35%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 35 18%
Social Sciences 31 16%
Psychology 22 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 13 7%
Arts and Humanities 5 3%
Other 17 9%
Unknown 75 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 10 December 2017.
All research outputs
#24,765,127
of 34,376,207 outputs
Outputs from Child: Care, Health & Development
#1,359
of 1,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#338,520
of 492,662 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Child: Care, Health & Development
#17
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,376,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,909 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 492,662 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.