Abstract
Background
Research on lone-mother families has commonly focussed on psychosocial risk factors and deficits rather than family assets (strengths and resiliency characteristics). The negative impacts of poverty and social isolation have been well documented. Home visitation programs provide formal support to overburdened families, yet little research has focussed on the meaning of support (e.g., formal and informal) from the perspective of families.
Methods
This qualitative exploratory descriptive study was completed in southwestern Alberta, with a purposeful sample of 13 families (mean annual income of $15,423 and 2.1 children) using mixed measurement (clinical tools and 2 semi-structured interviews).
Results
Similarities and differences in support and three lone-mother family structures were identified. A few lone-mother families described transformative experiences related to affirmative support from the home visitor. Not all families reported having ‘enough support’ to meet their needs. Sources of change in family assets included: a) support from the home visitor, b) ‘other supports’, or c) personal growth. On balance, support from home visitation was most commonly described as supporting these changes.
Summary
Support and assets were explored from a broad family and environmental context. Practice implications for home visitation and areas for future research were identified.
MeSH terms: family characteristics, health promotion, poverty, qualitative research, single-parent family, social support
Réumé
Contexte
La recherche sur les familles monoparentales dirigées par la mère a toujours porté avant tout sur les facteurs de risque psychosociaux et les déficits plutôt que sur les atouts familiaux (forces et caractéristiques de résilience). Les incidences négatives de la pauvreté et de l’isolement social sont bien documentées. Les programmes de visites à domicile offrent un appui structuré aux familles surchargées, mais peu de recherches ont porté avant tout sur la signification de l’appui reçu (officiel et officieux) du point de vue des familles.
Méthode
Cette étude descriptive, exploratoire et qualitative a été réalisée dans le sud-ouest de l’Alberta auprès d’un échantillon planifié de 13 familles (revenu annuel moyen de 15 423 $ et 2,1 enfants) à l’aide d’instruments de mesure composites (des outils cliniques et deux entrevues semi-structurées).
Résultats
Nous avons relevé des similitudes et des différences au niveau de l’appui et défini trois structures familiales monoparentales dirigées par la mère. Quelques-unes de ces familles ont fait état d’expériences de transformation liées à l’appui positif reçu de la ménagère visiteuse. Les familles n’ont pas toutes déclaré avoir «suffisamment d’appui» pour répondre à leurs besoins. Les sources de changement dans les atouts familiaux étaient: a) l’appui de la ménagère visiteuse, b) «l’appui d’autres sources» ou c) l’épanouissement personnel. Dans l’ensemble, l’appui reçu lors de visites à domicile était vu comme un facteur de changement.
Sommaire
Nous avons analysé l’appui et les atouts par rapport au contexte général de la famille et du milieu, puis dégagé des conséquences pratiques pour les programmes de visites à domicile et de nouvelles pistes de recherche.
References
- 1.Roth P. Family social support. In: Bomar PJ, editor. Nurses and Family Health Promotion: Concepts, Assessment and Interventions. 2nd ed. Toronto: W.B. Saunders Company; 1996. pp. 107–20. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Thompson RA, Ontai L. Striving to do well what comes naturally: Social support, developmental psychopatholo-gy, and social policy. Development and Psychopathology. 2000;12(4):657–75. doi: 10.1017/S0954579400004065. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Health Canada. Roundtable on population health and health promotion. 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Banyard VL, Graham-Bermann SA. Building an empowerment policy paradigm: Self-reported strengths of homeless mothers. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 1995;65(4):479–91. doi: 10.1037/h0079667. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Labonte R. Health promotion and empowerment: Practice frameworks. Toronto: Centre for Health Promotion and ParticipACTION; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 6.McDonald L, Kysela GM, Drummond J, Martin C, Wiles W, Alexander J. Assessment of clinical utility of The Family Adaptation Model. J Family Studies. 1997;3(1):47–65. doi: 10.5172/jfs.3.1.47. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Cohen S, Syme SL. The study and application of social support. In: Cohen S, Syme SL, editors. Social Support and Health. Toronto: Academic Press, Inc.; 1985. pp. 12–22. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Eshleman JR, Wilson SJ. The Family. 3rd ed. Toronto: Pearson Education Canada Inc.; 2001. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lipman EL, Boyle MH, Dooley MD, Offord DR. Child well-being in single-mother families. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002;41(1):75–82. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200201000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Statistics Canada. National Population Health Survey 1994–95. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Lee KK, Engler C. A profile of poverty in mid-sized Alberta cities. 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Moore KA, Chalk R, Scarps J, Vandivere S. Child Trends. 2002. Family strengths: Often overlooked, but real. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Cooperative Extension, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, & United States Department of Agriculture. 1998.
- 14.Richardson GE, Neiger BL, Jensen S, Kumpfer KL. The resiliency model. Health Educ. 1990;21(6):33–39. doi: 10.1080/00970050.1990.10614589. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Drummond JE, Kysela GM, McDonald L, Query B. The family adaptation model: Examination of dimensions and relations. Can J Nurs Res. 2002;34(1):29–46. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Klass C Ed., editor. The Home Visitor’s Guidebook. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge: MIT Press; 1979. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Lynch I, Tiedje LB. Working with multiproblem families: An intervention model for community health nursing. Public Health Nursing. 1991;8(3):147–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1446.1991.tb00747.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Sandelowski M. Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-method studies. Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(3):246–55. doi: 10.1002/1098-240X(200006)23:3<246::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-H. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.McGoldrick M, Gerson R. Genograms and the family life cycle. In: Carter B, McGoldrick M, editors. The Changing Family Life Cycle: A Framework for Family Therapy. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon; 1988. [Google Scholar]
- 21.Wright LM, Leahey M. Nurses and Families: A Guide to Family Assessment and Interventions. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: FA. Davis Company; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Brandt PA. Network Survey. Seattle, WA: NCAST, University of Washington; 1989. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Chinook Health Region. Families First Program Manual. Invest In Kids Training Manual. 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Healthy Families America. Healthy Families America training manual. 1998. pp. 1–199. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Invest in Kids. The years before five last the rest of their lives. 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Ayres L, Kavanaugh K, Knafl KA W-c-c a t q d analysis. Qualitative Health Res. 2003;13(6):871–83. doi: 10.1177/1049732303013006008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Miles M H AM. An Expanded Sourcebook: Qualitative Data Analysis. 2nd ed 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Lawrence P. Supports for independence and the cost of living in Alberta: Regional differences. Edmonton: The Alberta Council of Women’s Shelters; 2000. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Statistics Canada. Canadian Census 2001. 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Patton MQ. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 2002. [Google Scholar]