Perceptions and experiences of stigma among parents of children with developmental disorders in Ethiopia: A qualitative study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Although stigma related to developmental disorders (DD) has been associated with poor mental health among caregivers, an in-depth understanding of factors that influence internalisation of stigma by caregivers is missing. The aim of our study was to explore perceptions and experiences of stigma among parents of children with DD in Ethiopia and examine the contributing and protective factors for internalised stigma based on the perspectives of the parents themselves. We conducted in-depth interviews with eighteen parents (fourteen mothers, four fathers) in Addis Ababa (between December 25, 2017 and January 8, 2018) and the rural town of Butajira (between August 08, 2018 and August 16, 2018). We analysed the data using thematic analysis. Parents perceived and experienced different forms of stigma that were directed towards their child (public stigma) and themselves (courtesy stigma). Some parents also described how they isolated themselves and their child from social life (affiliate stigma). Parents perceived the negative consequence of stigma on the lives of their child with DD, siblings and themselves. Most parents also described examples of positive reactions and support from their own family and the community. Participants' accounts suggested supportive contributions and positive responses from the general public came primarily from those who had better awareness of DD. Not all parents in our study internalised the stigma that was directed at them. Whilst perceived family support and acceptance and increased awareness about DD appeared to help some parents not to internalise stigma, the perceived lack of social support and acceptance made some parents vulnerable to internalised stigma. These findings can inform anti-stigma intervention priorities. Awareness-raising activities targeting the community as a whole as well as interventions targeting parents themselves are likely to be beneficial. Interventions should consider the wellbeing of the whole family unit rather than focus on individuals alone.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».