Dysfunction among Families of Children with Intellectual Disability in India Using Systems Model: Prevalence, Pattern, and Severity of Impairment.

OBJECTIVES: Family dysfunction is observed in families with children with intellectual disability (ID). We study the prevalence, pattern of dysfunction, and severity of impairment in these special families using Systems approach. METHODS: Sixty-two special families (a child with ID) and 62 typical families (all children with typical development) were included in the present study. The presence of ID was confirmed and quantified with the Binet-Kamat Scale of intelligence or Gesell's Developmental Schedule and Vineland Social Maturity Scales among the special families. In the typical families, brief ID scale was used to rule out ID. Prevalence, pattern, and severity of family dysfunction were assessed using Family Apgar Scale, Chicago Youth Development Study Family Assessment Scale and Global Assessment of Relational Functioning Scale, respectively. Appropriate bivariate analyses were used. RESULTS: About 53% of special families and 19% of typical families had family dysfunction. About 21% of special families and 71% of typical families had the satisfactory relational unit. Areas of adaptability, partnership, growth, affection, resolve, beliefs about family, beliefs about development, beliefs about purpose, cohesion, deviant beliefs, support, organization, and communication were significantly different between special and typical families. The functional impairment was significantly more in the special families. CONCLUSION: Family dysfunction is more prevalent among special families in India using systems approach. These families should be screened for dysfunction, and family therapy be prescribed when required.

The Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Original Brief Intellectual Disability Scale and Alternative Models.

OBJECTIVE: Brief Intellectual Disability Scale (BIDS) is a measure validated for identification of children with intellectual disabilities (IDs) in countries with low disability resources. Following the publication of the exploratory factor analysis of BIDS, the authors have documented the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of BIDS in this study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted to document the CFA of the BIDS. Primary caregivers (N = 124) of children with ID were recruited and rated the BIDS. We used alternative fit indices for the evaluation of comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate the model fit. The 2-index fit strategy was used to select the best factor model. RESULTS: The model fit index for the original 3-factor model and alternative 2-factor and 1-factor models with 9 items of the BIDS was under identified along with another 3-factor, 7-item model. Another 1-factor, 7-item model was identified but did not satisfy the 2-index fit strategy. A short version of the scale with a 2-factor and 7-item model of BIDS presented the best fit indices of CFI = 0.952 and RMSEA = 0.069. CONCLUSION: Although the original factor structure of BIDS was not confirmed in this study, another alternative a priori model for the construct validity of BIDS was confirmed. Therefore, the BIDS factor structure has been revised, refined, and trimmed to the final 2-factor, 7-item shorter version. Further documentation of the diagnostic accuracy, validity, and reliability of this shorter version of BDI is recommended.

ARSH 7: Community adolescent health care and education: experience of an innovative approach.

OBJECTIVE: The main objective of the project was to create a community adolescent health care and education initiative with an innovative approach of educating all community stakeholders involved in promoting adolescent health. METHODS: Step 1: Conceptualization and strategy planning for combined training; Step II: Preparation of teaching module, flip charts and pamphlets in local language; Step III: Hands on training of community trainers; Step IV: Sensitization of the stakeholder leadership to ensure the cooperation of all stakeholders; Step V: Formation of Teen clubs; Step VI: The combined health education programs at community outlets; Step VII: Detection of adolescent health issues by ASHA and anganwadi workers; Step VIII: Setting up of Saturday adolescent clinics at CHCs as a community referral facility. RESULTS: Under 1,060 programs, 34,851 community stakeholders could be trained together including 15,777 mothers, 14,565 adolescents, 2,236 ASHA workers, 2,021 anganwadi workers, and 252 community leaders. The concept of combined training of community stakeholders was found to be feasible and acceptable to the participants. CONCLUSIONS: The experience of the CDC-NRHM-AHDP project has shown that ASHA workers and anganwadi workers could be important link persons between adolescents and the health providers.