MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W7062078059

Siege and Response: Familiesâ Everyday Lives and Experiences with Childrenâs Residential Mental Health Services (FULL REPORT)

2003· article· en· W7062078059 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University) · 2003
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePhysics and Astronomy
ThématiqueMagnetic confinement fusion research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMental healthRespite careInterviewResidential carePerceptionQualitative researchService (business)Dysfunctional familyAgency (philosophy)Generalizability theoryPsychological intervention
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Purpose Our purpose in interviewing parents with a child placed in residential mental health treatment was threefold: (1) to understand the functioning of children requiring residential mental health treatment before, during, and after treatment; (2) to characterize parents’ perceptions of their families’ involvement with residential treatment; and, (3) to address the popular notion that children requiring residential treatment come from highly dysfunctional and potentially harmful families by describing prevalent family functioning patterns.\nMethodology|This report is based on information obtained by interviewing 29 primary caregivers who had a child placed in residential care at one of two Ontario children’s mental health agencies. Parents were visited in their homes by an interviewer to engage in one-on-one dialogue to explore dimensions of their everyday lives and reflect on their service experiences. Interviews consisted of a series of open ended questions and were approximately 1 ½ to 2 hours in length. Because of the labour intensive nature of qualitative investigations, there are limitations to the number of cases that can practically be included in a study; however, what is lost in generalizability is compensated for by a richer sense of the struggles facing these families.\nParents’ Perceptions of Residential Services Parents were generally pleased with their child’s placement in a residential treatment center. Parents feel respected, valued, and understood by service providers. They experience staff as competent, compassionate, and helpful. Residential services offered respite for families and containment for focal children. Many parents reported gains made for themselves and their children. Yet only 17% of parents felt that sufficient gains had been made to warrant the discharge of their child from the center. Parents tended not to blame the residential center for the lack of progress. The also seemed unable to articulate what the residential center could have done differently. Yet these parents, extremely hopeful when they first had their child placed in residence, had to come to terms with the realization that service outcomes had not matched their hopes. These stories highlight both the complexity and the tenacious nature of these children’s mental health difficulties. They also provide a challenge to service providers. What do we do when good is not good enough?\nChanges in Child Functioning Before, During and After Residential CareThese stories provide dramatic testimony that most of the older cohort children in this study leaving residential care had very serious ongoing problems in daily living. Problems which in many cases rivaled or exceeded the challenges faced prior to entering residential care. About one-third of these children had left home and many had unstable living arrangements or were “on the streets”. With the exception of living on their own and involvement in delinquent activities, and notwithstanding moderately more evidence of “successful” or partially “successful” adaptations, the after care daily living portraits of younger cohort residential care graduates were not notably more encouraging. About half of these younger children did not return to their original homes 6 after residential care. Serious areas of concern shared by both groups of children include continuing major adaptation problems at school and continued high levels of pressure on the parents and siblings of many of these children.\nParent and Family FunctioningCaring for the focal child permeates every facet of daily life for these families including work, health, and relationships. Parents experience prolonged elevated levels of daily stress trying to juggle work schedules, appointments with professionals, household activities, and the needs of family members with caring for the focal child. Family climate is markedly tense and frequently involves conflict, particularly with the focal child. Relationships among other family members suffer as well, with parents reporting increased marital strain and little time to devote to siblings of the focal child. Caring for the focal child is taxing on parents’ own physical and mental health. Most families (70%) reported experiencing substantial relief, at least for a short period of time, from tensions within the home when the focal child entered residential care.\nChild Functioning Over Three Selected Developmental PeriodsOne of the interpretative challenges inherent in these stories is understanding the connection between the behaviour of these children, which is strikingly similar, and evidence suggestive of these children having a variety of problems, life histories and family environments. It can be argued that these children arrive at a similar point from many different trajectories. Who are the children represented in this sample? How are we to understand their difficulties? When it comes to understanding the behaviour of the focal children, both its presentation and its genesis, these stories raise as many questions as they answer. These stories challenge the notion of a single or root cause of extreme unmanageable behaviour. Instead they offer a complex and unsettling portrayal of these children, their familial and social environments, life histories, their strengths and challenges. These stories caution against the use of blanket or catch-all interpretations to help us understand the problematic behaviour of these children.\nConclusionDespite the positive view of residential treatment held by parents long after treatment ends, the data suggest relatively poor outcome patterns for children leaving residential care. Serious areas of concern shared by both groups of children include continuing major adaptation problems at school and continued high levels of pressure on the parents and siblings of many of these children. The clearest area of benefit from these residential placements, at least in the short run, is for family members other than the focal child. This is an important consideration, given the incredible pressures families manage when the focal child is at home, and the extreme disruptions in family life described in these stories. An obvious question emanating from these stories is what can be expected for these children - in school, employment and relationships - over the years ahead. There is almost no support in our study for helping strategies predicated on “curing” or changing the focal child through short-term or medium-term interventions so that he or she can prosper in everyday life. Variations in living arrangements, enhancing school and employment opportunities, and continuing support to these children and their families with the challenges of daily living merit serious attention.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,004
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,961
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,077

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0040,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0080,003
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,005
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,005
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,005
Tête enseignante GPT0,218
Écart entre enseignants0,213 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2003
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScholars Commons (Wilfrid Laurier University)Même sujetMagnetic confinement fusion researchTravaux en français237 207