Hickey Lyndal, Anderson Vicki, Hearps Stephen, Jordan Brigid
a The Royal Children's Hospital , Melbourne , Australia.
b University of Melbourne , Melbourne , Australia.
Dev Neurorehabil. 2018 Oct;21(7):457-464. doi: 10.1080/17518423.2018.1434697. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
To compare the efficacy of a new intervention 'Family Forward' with 'Usual Care' social work practice in optimising family appraisal of a child's acquired brain injury to ensure better adaptation during the inpatient rehabilitation phase of care and early transition home.
Single site, prospective, sequential comparison group design.
Families were recruited on admission to an inpatient rehabilitation service based at a tertiary paediatric hospital. The 'Usual Care' group (n = 22; 29 parents) recruitment, intervention and data collection were completed first (Phase 1), followed by the 'Family Forward' group (n = 25; 43 parents) (Phase 2). Parents/caregivers completed measures: (Impact of Event Scale- Revised: IES-R; Parents Experience of Childhood Illness and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire: Brief IPQ) at the time of their child's inpatient rehabilitation admission, inpatient rehabilitation discharge, and 6 weeks post-discharge.
There were more children with traumatic brain injuries in the Family Forward group (n = 13) than Usual Care (n = 6) and the Family Forward group had a longer hospital admission (days, M = 56.4, SD = 46.1 vs. M = 37.5, SD = 16.4, p = 0.019). No significant group differences were found for family appraisal outcomes at any of the three time-points. Both groups reported reductions in trauma and grief responses, emotional experiences and perceptions of their child's injury at post-intervention and follow-up. Both groups continued to have depleted emotional resources (PECI scale) at 6 weeks post-discharge.
The study contributes important insights into family appraisal experience in the early stages following paediatric acquired brain injury. In this context, 'Family Forward' needs to incorporate interventions that support and promote ongoing family appraisal as issues related to their child's injury arise over time. Future research is needed to focus on whether the Family Forward approach does sustain family system adaptation (a key aim informing the design of the intervention) over the longer term.
比较一种新干预措施“家庭向前”与“常规护理”社会工作实践在优化家庭对儿童获得性脑损伤评估方面的效果,以确保在住院康复护理阶段及早期过渡回家期间能更好地适应。
单中心、前瞻性、序贯比较组设计。
在一家三级儿科医院的住院康复服务机构招募入院的家庭。“常规护理”组(n = 22;29名家长)的招募、干预和数据收集首先完成(第1阶段),随后是“家庭向前”组(n = 25;43名家长)(第2阶段)。家长/照顾者在孩子住院康复入院时、住院康复出院时以及出院后6周完成测量:(事件影响量表修订版:IES-R;童年疾病父母经历和简短疾病认知问卷:简短IPQ)。
“家庭向前”组(n = 13)中创伤性脑损伤的儿童比“常规护理”组(n = 6)更多,且“家庭向前”组的住院时间更长(天数,M = 56.4,SD = 46.1 vs. M = 37.5,SD = 16.4,p = 0.019)。在三个时间点中的任何一个时间点,家庭评估结果均未发现显著的组间差异。两组均报告在干预后和随访时,创伤和悲伤反应、情绪体验以及对孩子损伤的认知有所减少。两组在出院后6周时情绪资源(PECI量表)仍然匮乏。
该研究为儿科获得性脑损伤后早期阶段的家庭评估经验提供了重要见解。在此背景下,随着与孩子损伤相关的问题随时间出现,“家庭向前”需要纳入支持和促进持续家庭评估的干预措施。未来的研究需要关注“家庭向前”方法是否能在更长时间内维持家庭系统适应(这是干预设计的一个关键目标)。