Family functioning and childhood accident occurrence.

Abstract

The relationship between family functioning and childhood accident occurrence is examined, and family assessment is suggested as a diagnostic tool capable of identifying children prone to repetitive accidents. Implications for clinical intervention are discussed.

Marital Disruption and Accidents/Injuries Among Children

“…When the effect of family structure on childhood accidents/injuries has been studied, it has been assessed in terms of family type (single parent/ stepparent/two-parent families : Dawson 1991;Plionis, 1977;Wadsworth et al 1983; spouse of mother absence: Mott, 1999; and presence of one vs. two adult caregivers: Kelly & Miles-Doan, 1997). Past results linking family type or household structure to accidents/injuries are mixed.…”

“…Dawson (1991) reported that children in formerly married mother and mother/stepfather families had a significantly greater chance of accidental injury and poisoning than children in two-parent families. Plionis (1977), too, concluded that father absence from the home significantly increased children's accidents. It must be emphasized, though, that the measures used in these studies are not the same as divorce/separation.…”

Injury Control—psychosocial Considerations

“…There is ample evidence to support the notion that the family constitutes the most important aspect of the socio-cultural environment cind that individual pathology and fcunily pathology are inter-related (Litman, 1974). The relationships between a variety of aspects of family functioning and childhood injuries have been examined by several authors (Husband & Hinton, 1972;Krall, 1953;Martin, 1970;Padilla et al, 1976;Plionis, 1977;Sibert, 1975). As is shown below, these investigations have suffered from a variety of methodological shortcomings which have reduced the significance of the fmdings.…”

“…The methodological shortcomings of the family background studies are typical and serve to illustrate the point. Shortcomings have included small sample sizes (n= 15-105) (Husband & Hinton, 1972;Krall, 1953;Martin, 1970;Padilla et at., 1976;Plionis, 1977;Sibert, 1975); the absence of control or comparison groups (Husbaind & Hinton, 1972;Plionis, 1977); the use of subjective and non-standardised assessments of independent variables (Husbzind & Hinton, 1972;Martin, 1970;Padilla et al, 1976); and failure to have 'blind' interviews of families (Husband & Hinton, 1972;Martin, 1970;Sibert, 1975).…”

Epidemiology of Childhood Injuries

“…70 Suchman has related childhood injuries to social deviance,71 a hypoth¬ esis somewhat supported by the find¬ ing that a relatively large percentage of school injuries were acts of aggres¬ sion.21 Symbolic violence and bodycontact sports, both very common in our society, are not outlets for vio¬ lence but serve rather to reinforce aggressive and dangerous behavior.12·73 The aggressive imitation by children of television heros is a common cause of injury.74-75 The value placed by our society on "autonomy, aggressive competitiveness, the ability to re¬ spond vigorously to stress and chal¬ lenge, and a willingness to take risks" contributes to the injury problem among children. PRE-EVENT PHASE: SOCIOCULTURAL ENVIRONMENT Social and cultural factors are important in the initiation of the inju¬ ry event.…”