Risk and protective factors for posttraumatic stress and posttraumatic growth in parents of children with intellectual and developmental disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Parents of children with intellectual and developmental disorders often experience potentially traumatic events while caring for their children. Heightened posttraumatic stress (PTS) and posttraumatic growth (PTG) have been found in this population. Objective: We aimed to explore risk and protective factors for their PTS and PTG. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted with 385 parents (average age M = 43.14 years, SD = 7.40; 95.3% mothers). Results: = .065). Conclusions: Our study increases the understanding of posttraumatic reactions in parents, predominantly mothers, of children with IDD and identified parenting-related trauma, social support, and barriers to mental health care as predictive factors of the reactions. More research is needed to confirm and validate the effects of the discussed factors. Although causation can not be inferred, prompt and adequate screening and therapeutic resources should be provided to those mothers who were exposed to multiple stressful caregiving events and had limited healthcare access and less support from their spouses, peers, and caregiving partners. HIGHLIGHTS: Parents of a child with Intellectual and Developmental Disorders with parenting trauma had higher posttraumatic stress (PTS) and posttraumatic growth (PTG).Social support was related to lower PTS and higher PTG.Barriers to care were related to higher PTS but unrelated to PTG.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".