Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2020 Mar 26:11:39-51.
doi: 10.2147/AHMT.S237807. eCollection 2020.

Young People's Response to Parental Neurological Disorder: A Structured Review

Affiliations
Review

Young People's Response to Parental Neurological Disorder: A Structured Review

Lilian Hartman et al. Adolesc Health Med Ther. .

Abstract

Introduction: A significant paucity of literature exists relating to the impact on children of parental neurological disorder, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The wider literature in this field (parental cancer, depression, alcoholism, HIV/AIDS) exhibits the many potential challenges young people might experience during serious parental illness. Given this, a literature review of parental neurological disorder is long overdue.

Methods: This review is structured around the World Health Organisation (WHO) classification of neurological disorders. The WHO identifies 10 common neurological disorders; dementia, epilepsy, headache, multiple sclerosis, neuroinfections, neurological disorders associated with malnutrition, pain associated with neurological disorders, Parkinson's disease, stroke, and traumatic brain injury. A comprehensive search of the MEDLINE database was performed using key terms for each of the 10 conditions. Results for each condition were divided in to "negative", "positive and/or neutral" and "other" child responses.

Results: The search yielded a total of 6247 titles, of which 184 underwent a full-text assessment. Sixty-five met all eligibility criteria and were thus included in the review. A number of negative issues emerged across parental conditions including the prevalence of child mood disorders, parent-child role reversal, children's need for information on the parental condition, the importance of family cohesion, the negative effect of parental psychopathology and differences between male and female children. A limited number of positive outcomes were evident in a minority of parental conditions. Outcomes measured and methodologies employed were highly heterogeneous.

Conclusion: Children generally respond negatively to parental neurological disorder. Responses varied between neurological disorders, suggesting the need for parental disease-specific guidance and clinical management where required.

Keywords: World Health Organisation; children; neurological disorder; outcomes; parent; parental illness; review; young people.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Data extraction form used for review process. Data from Razaz et al.

References

    1. Firth P. Patients and their families In: Stiefel F, editor. Communication in Cancer Care. Recent Results in Cancer Research. Vol. 168 Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2006:61–71. - PubMed
    1. Morley D, Li X, Jenkinson C. Children and Young People’s Response to Parental Illness: A Handbook of Assessment & Practice. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2017.
    1. Sieh DS, Visser-Meily JMA, Meijer AM. Differential outcomes of adolescents with chronically ill and healthy parents. J Child Fam Stud. 2013;22(2):209–218. doi: 10.1007/s10826-012-9570-8 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barkmann C, Romer G, Watson M, Schulte-markwort M. Parental physical illness as a risk for psychosocial maladjustment in children and adolescents: epidemiological findings from a National Survey in Germany. Psychosomatics. 2007;48(6):476–481. doi: 10.1176/appi.psy.48.6.476 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Armistead L, Klein K, Forehand R. Parental physical illness and child functioning. Clin Psychol Rev. 1995;15(5):409–422. doi: 10.1016/0272-7358(95)00023-I - DOI