Cited by 71Family and Disability Support ResearchCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Communicating a Diagnosis of Cerebral Palsy: Caregiver Satisfaction and Stress

Dagenais, Lynn, Hall, Nicholas, Majnemer, Annette, Birnbaum, Rena, Dumas, Francine, Gosselin, Julie, Koclas, Louise, Shevell, Michael I.·2006·Pediatric Neurology

Abstract

As part of the implementation of a population-based registry of children with cerebral palsy, caregiver satisfaction with the process by which diagnosis was originally communicated by a professional was assessed. Satisfaction with various aspects of the diagnosis process was assessed using a five-point Likert scale and related to child, family, and situational characteristics. Measures were then correlated with current caregiver stress as measured objectively by the Parenting Stress Inventory. During the registration process, 59 consecutive caregivers (55 mothers) were questioned. Overall, 62% (35/59) were satisfied with the disclosure process, with satisfaction ranging from 69% (41/59-hopefulness) to 92% (54/59-honesty) for professional qualities, and from 61% (36/59-sufficient information provided) to 78% (46/59-understandable) for disclosure content. Satisfaction was related to the quantity and content of information given at the disclosure session. Parenting Stress Inventory scores, both total and for parental distress, correlated significantly with both the severity of the child's cerebral palsy and caregiver satisfaction with varying elements of the disclosure process. Overall caregiver satisfaction with the process by which a diagnosis of cerebral palsy is given appears to be good. Together with the severity of a child's intrinsic cerebral palsy, it appears to relate to later parental adjustment to a setting of chronic disability, suggesting a portal through which improvements in information delivery may result in better familial adaptation to disability.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pediatrneurol.2006.07.006

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dagenais, L., Hall, N., Majnemer, A., Birnbaum, R., Dumas, F., Gosselin, J., Koclas, L., & Shevell, M. I.
Affiliations
  • Montreal Children's Hospital (CA)
  • Université Laval (CA)
  • Université de Montréal (CA)
Corresponding author
Shevell, Michael I.
Venue
Pediatric Neurology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-12
Volume
35
Issue
6
Pages
408-414
ISSN
0887-8994 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2071228181
Cited by
71
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 6
FWCI
0.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Pediatric Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Cerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
cerebral palsy, diagnosis disclosure, caregiver satisfaction, parental stress, information delivery, chronic disability, family adjustment, child health information
MeSH terms
Adult, Cerebral Palsy, Child, Preschool, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Parents, Physician-Patient Relations, Registries, Stress, Psychological, Truth Disclosure, Caregivers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review