Analysis of the related factors on family adaptation of hospitalized children / 中国实用护理杂志

Objective The purpose of this study was to identify the effect factors on family adaptation of hospitalized children.Methods A survey was conducted in 330 hospitalized children's parents using questionnaires such as FSI,FVI,FHI,FWBI.Results Multiple factor analysis showed that the strongest resilience factor was family hardiness,the second one was general family value on family adaptation of hospitalized children.Conclusions Family hardiness and family value have the adjusting role on family adaptation of hospitalized children.Therefore,the significance of this study can be used to develop family nursing intervention program based on family resilience to strengthen family adaptation of hospitalized children.

Analysis on Family Value of the Family with Cancer Children / 아동간호학회지

The family value is expected to play a crucial role in adjusting a new environment for the family, especially in the critical situation as having a child with cancer in the family. The purpose of the study was to analyze the family values of the family with cancer children in order to offer descriptive data, which will facilitate family adjustment with cancer children. The survey was conducted from July 18, 2000 to August 30, 2000 and the analysis included 309 parents of the children who have been diagnosed as cancer, 18 years of age or less, and treated either hospitalized or at the outpatient clinics. Two instruments were used to measure family value. The modified form of General family value scale was 18 items with a 5 points of Likert response format (Cronbach alpha= .78) and Family value scale was developed for the study with 12 items on a 5 points of Likert response format(Cronbach alpha= .73). The data analysis utilized SAS 6.12 for percentage, frequency, Mean, and t-test of demographic characteristics and mean, F score, ANOVA, and Duncan follow-up test of variable relationships. The study findings were as follows. 1) In General family value, the fathers gave the higher scores to 'The children should live with their parents'(M=4.01), and 'A parents and their children are like one body' (M=3.91). The item with lowest score was 'Its not impossible for man to have extramarital relationship'(M=1.92). The mothers thought the most important items were 'A parents and their children are like one body'(M=3.79), and 'A wife needs to be patient to keep harmony of the family' (M=3.56), and the item with lowest score was 'Its not impossible for man to have extramarital relationship'(M=1.44). 2) The mean scores of the mothers were higher than the fathers for all items in family value with cancer children, while fathers gave more points for items in general family value. Both of parents gave the highest score to 'The health of the family is most important to me'(M=4.85 for fathers, M=4.97 for mothers), and followed by 'The husband and wife need to be patient and understand each other to overcome the difficulties'. The item with lowest scores was 'The parents can have conflicts in making decisions since their child was sick'(M=3.34 for fathers, M=3.37 for mothers). 3) There were significant differences between fathers and mothers in items of General family value; fathers gave more points to the items of 'The children should live with their parents', 'Its essential to hold the ceremony to respect their forefathers', 'Its not impossible for man to have extramarital relationship', 'A woman with two daughters should have one more baby to succeed the generation', 'The husbands are responsible for the household economy', and 'When his mother and wife dont get along, the man should be on his mothers side'. However, there was no significant difference between fathers and mothers in items of Family value with cancer children. 4) The general family value was significantly different by the birth order of cancer children, mothers age, mothers education level, and types of payment. On the other hand, the family value with cancer children was significantly different by the age of cancer children, period of illness, period after completing treatment, family type, the number of family members, and the number of total children.

Effects of Family Value on Family Adaptation in Family Who has a Child with Cancer / 아동간호학회지

As a family respond to any stressful situation as a whole system, cancer diagnosis of a child, as a serious life event, could be emotional shock to destroy homeostasis of the family system. A family has a resilient capacity to adjust and adapt to stressful events. Previous studies have been focused on family stress and adaptation, but little attention has been given to family value as one of resilient factors. The data for model testing were collected from July 18, 2000 to August 30, 2000 and the analysis included 309 parents of children who are diagnosed as cancer, 18 or less years of age, and treated either hospitalized or at the outpatient clinics. The data analysis utilized SAS 6.12 and LISREL 8 for descriptive statistics, correlation, cluster analysis, factor analysis, and LISREL. The study findings are as follows. 1) Monthly income ( gamma =-0.28, t=-5.81) was the most important factor to explain family strain along with family support ( gamma =-0.11, t=-2.43), severity of children's illness ( gamma =0.26, t=5.22), and family stressor ( gamma =0.22, t=4.62). All of these factors together explained 40% of variance in family strain. 2) Among general family value, the relationship with the parents ( gamma =0.28, t=4.89) and relationship with the children ( gamma =0.20, t=3.60) showed positive effects to family value for cancer children, while relationship with the spouse ( gamma =-0.19, t=-3.22) and the age of the cancer children ( gamma =-0.11, t=-2.21) showed negative effects. These predictors together explained 22% of variance in family value for cancer children. 3)Family hardiness was explained mostly by family strain ( gamma =-0.53, t=-8.65) along with direct negative effects of family persistency and indirect negative effects of severity of children's illness, family stressor, relationship with the spouse, and the children's age. Family value for cancer children was the most important predictor with positive effect ( gamma =0.44, t=6.76) along with indirect effects of monthly income, relationship with the parents, relationship with the children, support from family and significant others, and confidence with the health professionals. 51% of variance in family hardiness was explained by all of these predictors. 4)The most important predictor for family adaptation was family stressor ( gamma =-0.50, t=-6.85) with direct and indirect negative effects along with the severity of children's illness ( gamma =-0.27, t=-5.21). However, family value for cancer children showed compromised total effect ( gamma =-0.13, t=-1.99) with negative direct effects ( gamma =-0.28, t=-3.43) and positive indirect effects ( gamma =0.14, t=3.01). Similarly, confidence with the health professionals also showed compromised total effect ( gamma =0.09, t=1.99) with positive direct effects and negative indirect effects. Family hardiness showed the biggest positive direct effects while other factors such as monthly income, family stressor, family persistence, support of family and significant others, relationship with the parents, relationship with the children, and relationship with the spouse, and children's age showed indirect effects only. 39% of variance in family adaptation was explained by all of these predictors.

Effects of Family Value on Family Adaptation in Family Who has a Child with Cancer / 아동간호학회지

As a family respond to any stressful situation as a whole system, cancer diagnosis of a child, as a serious life event, could be emotional shock to destroy homeostasis of the family system. A family has a resilient capacity to adjust and adapt to stressful events. Previous studies have been focused on family stress and adaptation, but little attention has been given to family value as one of resilient factors. The data for model testing were collected from July 18, 2000 to August 30, 2000 and the analysis included 309 parents of children who are diagnosed as cancer, 18 or less years of age, and treated either hospitalized or at the outpatient clinics. The data analysis utilized SAS 6.12 and LISREL 8 for descriptive statistics, correlation, cluster analysis, factor analysis, and LISREL. The study findings are as follows. 1) Monthly income ( gamma =-0.28, t=-5.81) was the most important factor to explain family strain along with family support ( gamma =-0.11, t=-2.43), severity of children's illness ( gamma =0.26, t=5.22), and family stressor ( gamma =0.22, t=4.62). All of these factors together explained 40% of variance in family strain. 2) Among general family value, the relationship with the parents ( gamma =0.28, t=4.89) and relationship with the children ( gamma =0.20, t=3.60) showed positive effects to family value for cancer children, while relationship with the spouse ( gamma =-0.19, t=-3.22) and the age of the cancer children ( gamma =-0.11, t=-2.21) showed negative effects. These predictors together explained 22% of variance in family value for cancer children. 3)Family hardiness was explained mostly by family strain ( gamma =-0.53, t=-8.65) along with direct negative effects of family persistency and indirect negative effects of severity of children's illness, family stressor, relationship with the spouse, and the children's age. Family value for cancer children was the most important predictor with positive effect ( gamma =0.44, t=6.76) along with indirect effects of monthly income, relationship with the parents, relationship with the children, support from family and significant others, and confidence with the health professionals. 51% of variance in family hardiness was explained by all of these predictors. 4)The most important predictor for family adaptation was family stressor ( gamma =-0.50, t=-6.85) with direct and indirect negative effects along with the severity of children's illness ( gamma =-0.27, t=-5.21). However, family value for cancer children showed compromised total effect ( gamma =-0.13, t=-1.99) with negative direct effects ( gamma =-0.28, t=-3.43) and positive indirect effects ( gamma =0.14, t=3.01). Similarly, confidence with the health professionals also showed compromised total effect ( gamma =0.09, t=1.99) with positive direct effects and negative indirect effects. Family hardiness showed the biggest positive direct effects while other factors such as monthly income, family stressor, family persistence, support of family and significant others, relationship with the parents, relationship with the children, and relationship with the spouse, and children's age showed indirect effects only. 39% of variance in family adaptation was explained by all of these predictors.

Relationships of Family Value, Vamily Hardiness and Hamily Adaptation in Family who has a Child with Cancer / 아동간호학회지

The purposes of the study were to develop an instrument for family value and to identify the relationships of family value, family hardiness, and family adaptation by appling the family value scale to family with cancer children. The study was conducted in three phases. 1) A survey was conducted from July 20 to August 20, 1999 and 18 items of general family value scale was modified from the data of 153 fathers and 164 mothers. 2) In-depth interviews were made with 29 parents of cancer children from April 20, 1998 to May 20, 1999 to develop family value scale with cancer children, and 12 statements were developed. 3) The final survey was conducted from July 18, 2000 to August 30, 2000 and the data from 309 parents of children who are diagnosed as cancer, 18 or less years of age, and treated either hospitalized or at the outpatient clinics were analyzed to identify the relationships of the concepts. The data analysis utilized SAS 6.12 and LISREL 8 for descriptive statistics, correlation, and Regression for path analysis. The study findings are as follows. The psychometric testing of general family value scale was Cronbach's alpha = 0.78. The reliability of the family value scale with cancer children showed the reliability as Cronbach's alpha = 0.73. Demographic characteristics showing significant correlations were cancer children's age, period of illness, period after completing treatment, mother's age, mother's education level, monthly income, payment type, confidence with health professional, and severity of children's illness. The correlation coefficients among major variables showed that family stressor was positively related with family strains(r=0.33, p < .001), and negatively related with family hardiness(r=-0.21, p < .001). Family strains was negatively related with family hardiness(r= -0.41, p < .001) and family adaptation(r=-0.46, p < .001). Correlations of family hardiness was positive with family value with cancer children(r=-0.31, p < .001), and negative with general family value(r=-0.16, p < .01). Family hardiness was positively related with family adaptation(r=0.35, p < .001). The causal relationship between study variables showed that family strains predicts general family value( gamma =0.12, t=2.02), family value with cancer children predicts family hardiness( gamma =0.31, t=6.30), family strains predicts family hardiness( gamma =-0.40, t=-7.70), family value with cancer children predicts family adaptation( gamma =-0.23, t=-4.11), and family hardiness predicts family adaptation( gamma =0.43, t=7.78).