Cited by 247Family and Disability Support ResearchMental Health and Patient InvolvementNursing care and research

Peer support for parents of children with chronic disabling conditions: A systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies

Open access
Shilling, Val, Morris, Christopher, Thompson‐Coon, Jo, Ukoumunne, Obioha, Rogers, Morwenna, Logan, Stuart·2013·Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology

Abstract

AIM: To review the qualitative and quantitative evidence of the benefits of peer support for parents of children with disabling conditions in the context of health, well-being, impact on family, and economic and service implications. METHOD: We comprehensively searched multiple databases. Eligible studies evaluated parent-to-parent support and reported on the psychological health and experience of giving or receiving support. There were no limits on the child's condition, study design, language, date, or setting. We sought to aggregate quantitative data; findings of qualitative studies were combined using thematic analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data were brought together in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Seventeen papers were included: nine qualitative studies, seven quantitative studies, and one mixed-methods evaluation. Four themes were identified from qualitative studies: (1) shared social identity, (2) learning from the experiences of others, (3) personal growth, and (4) supporting others. Some quantitative studies reported a positive effect of peer support on psychological health and other outcomes; however, this was not consistently confirmed. It was not possible to aggregate data across studies. No costing data were identified. CONCLUSION: Qualitative studies strongly suggest that parents perceive benefit from peer support programmes, an effect seen across different types of support and conditions. However, quantitative studies provide inconsistent evidence of positive effects. Further research should explore whether this dissonance is substantive or an artefact of how outcomes have been measured.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/dmcn.12091

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on early childhood and adoption, and dependent care. The pedi- atrician's role in family support and family support pro- grams. Pediatrics 2011; 128: e1680-4.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shilling, V., Morris, C., Thompson‐Coon, J., Ukoumunne, O., Rogers, M., & Logan, S.
Affiliations
  • Peninsula Cerebra Research Unit University of Exeter Medical School Exeter UK
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • NIHR PenCLAHRC University of Exeter Medical School Exeter UK
Venue
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-02-19
Volume
55
Issue
7
Pages
602-609
ISSN
  • 0012-1622 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8749
OpenAlex
W2052567464
Cited by
247
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Sussex Research Online (University of Sussex) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • Cerebra
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Family and Disability Support Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mental Health and Patient Involvement
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
Keywords
peer support, parent-to-parent support, child disability, psychological well-being, family impact, social identity, personal growth, economic burden
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Persons with Disabilities, Humans, Parents, Peer Group, Social Support, Qualitative Research

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