4.0 Review

Employed Parents of Children with Disabilities and Work Family Life Balance: A Literature Review

期刊

CHILD & YOUTH CARE FORUM
卷 46, 期 6, 页码 857-876

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10566-017-9407-0

关键词

Parents; Work family balance; Disabilities; Children; Employment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Work family balance (WFB) is an individual's perception of the fit between work and family roles. Among employed parents of typically developing children WFB has been demonstrated to impact work functioning and physical and psychological health. Emerging from this mature field of research are examinations of WFB among parents of children with disabilities. Our objective was to identify research to conduct a review and examine the expectation that individual and organizational factors impact WFB among employed parents of children with disabilities. Also, we identify existing research gaps in the literature, discuss how existing policies may need to be altered to better assist employed parents of children with disabilities, and identify ways practitioners can better assist these families. We searched PsycInfo, EBSCO Host Web, and Proquest Central for English-language articles and dissertations. To obtain additional studies, we searched identified studies' reference lists. We used the same databases to search for studies published by authors who have already published on WFB among parents of children with disabilities. Fifty-four studies examining WFB among employed parents of children with disabilities were identified. Individual factors that had an impact on WFB were child age, number of children, childcare availability, relationship status, perception of one's work role, and type and severity of the child's disability. Organizational factors that had an impact on WFB were supervisory support, workplace policies, and organizational culture. The extant research of WFB among employed parents of children with disabilities indicates that numerous variables impact these individuals' WFB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据