MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411977182 · doi:10.2196/65754

Examination of Chronic Sorrow Among Parents of Children With Disabilities: Cross-Sectional Study

2025· article· en· W4411977182 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samaa Al Anazi, Naseem Abdulmohi Alhujaili, Dina Sinqali, Ftoon Al Heej, Lojain Al Somali, Samaher Khayat, Talah Ramboo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Pediatrics and Parenting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFamily and Disability Support Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingWorryPsychologyDevelopmental psychologyCross-sectional studyPopulationClinical psychologyMedicinePsychiatrySocial psychologyAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Parents of children with disabilities face many challenges when providing care, along with persistent worry and fear about the child's health outcomes and the impact of the disability on their lives. These parents experience stressful situations and face many emotions, one of which is chronic sorrow (CS). Therefore, the theory of CS was introduced to examine and measure feelings of CS among parents. Little research has been conducted with Saudi parents with a child with disabilities and the utilization of CS theory in this population is limited. Objective: This study aims to examine the application of CS theory on parents of children with disabilities in Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional design was used to obtain data from 89 participants who are parents of children with disabilities. A web-based questionnaire was distributed to measure CS. Results: The study examined the concepts within CS theory. The concept of loss experience yielded a moderately high score (mean 3.3, SD 1.10); of all the variables measuring loss experience, parents scored high in feeling sad when thinking about their child's disability (mean 3.9, SD 1.24). Parents also reported a moderately high score (mean 3.3, SD 1.06) for the concept of disparity, specifically when their child does not meet the same developmental milestones as their peers (mean 3.8, SD 1.30). Feelings of CS also displayed a moderately high score (mean 3, SD 0.87), with the periodic nature of CS scoring the highest within the concept of CS (mean 3.6, SD 1.16). In addition, internal and external management methods that parents believe are effective were examined. Internal management of CS was believed to be of high importance (mean 4.6, SD 0.33), specifically the belief of fatalism (mean 4.8, SD 0.50). Parents also viewed external management as important in navigating their emotions (mean 4.5, SD 0.42), specifically social support from family and the community (mean 4.7, SD 0.55). This study identified strong positive relationships between sorrow and loss experience and disparity (both r=0.765 and P<.001). Lastly, the study found no relationship between CS and time elapsed since parents received their child's diagnosis (r=-0.009; P=.94). Conclusions: This study applied the theory of CS to the parents of children with disabilities and they reported feelings of loss, disparity, and CS. Therefore, this population should be screened and provided with parental emotional care. Interventions to enhance parental mental health and well-being and support CS management should be developed and used by health care workers. Parental acceptance of their child's disability does not mean the absence of CS, as it is part of the normal grieving process. Anticipating CS triggers and applying internal and external management are essential to improving parental mental health and child health outcomes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Pediatrics and ParentingSame topicFamily and Disability Support ResearchFrench-language works237,207