↓ 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 (51st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
126 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
434 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.

X Demographics

X Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 434 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Sierra Leone 1 <1%
Unknown 433 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 76 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 50 12%
Researcher 46 11%
Student > Bachelor 38 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 35 8%
Other 67 15%
Unknown 122 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 77 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 62 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 55 13%
Social Sciences 50 12%
Arts and Humanities 11 3%
Other 41 9%
Unknown 138 32%
Attention Score in Context

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
#13,645,858
of 23,302,246 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#4,677
of 7,800 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#146,394
of 300,152 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#47
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,302,246 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,800 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 300,152 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 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.