4.2 Article

Parents' Perception of Receiving Family-Centered Care for Their Children with Physical Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis

Journal

PHYSICAL & OCCUPATIONAL THERAPY IN PEDIATRICS
Volume 38, Issue 4, Pages 427-443

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/01942638.2017.1337664

Keywords

Children with physical disabilities; family-centered care; measure of processes of care (MPOC-20); meta-analysis; systematic review

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aims: Understanding parent perceptions of family-centered care (FCC) is important to improve processes and outcomes of children's services. Objective: A systematic review and meta-analysis of research on the Measures of Processes of Care (MPOC-20) were performed to determine the extent parents of children with physical disabilities perceive they received FCC. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using four databases. A total of 129 studies were retrieved; 15 met the criteria for the synthesis. Meta-analysis involving 2,582 mothers and fathers of children with physical disabilities mainly cerebral palsy was conducted for the five scales of the MPOC-20. Results: Aggregated mean ratings varied from 5.0 to 5.5 for Providing Specific Information about the Child; Coordinated and Comprehensive Care; and Respectful and Supportive Care (relational behaviors) and Enabling and Partnership (participatory behaviors) indicating that, on average, parents rated FCC as having been provided to a fairly great extent. The aggregated mean rating was 4.1 for Providing General Information, indicating FCC was provided to a moderate extent. Conclusions: Service providers are encouraged to focus on child and family needs for general information. Research is needed to better understand parent perspectives of service provider participatory behaviors which are important for engaging families in intervention processes.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available