Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Depressive symptoms, social support, cognitive function, and stigma: predictors of resilience in caregivers of children with intellectual disabilities Cover

Depressive symptoms, social support, cognitive function, and stigma: predictors of resilience in caregivers of children with intellectual disabilities

Open Access
|Dec 2022

Figures & Tables

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics.

Demographic datan (%)M ± SD
Sex
    Female68 (80.0)
Age (years)50.19 ± 9.56
Marital status
    Single4 (4.7)
    Married56 (65.9)
    Widow15 (17.6)
    Divorced10 (11.8)
Education
    Elementary or lower41 (48.3)
    High school12 (14.1)
    College or higher32 (37.6)
Occupation
    Employee18.8
    Selling16.5
    Housewife36.5
    Official staff5.9
    Other (e.g., not prefer to answer)22.4
Duration of caring (years)
    <54 (4.7)
    >581 (95.3)
Primary caregiver
    Parents68 (80.0)
    Caregivers17 (20.0)
Depression4.16 ± 4.91
    No depression62 (72.9)
    Mild depression14 (16.5)
    Moderate depression7 (8.2)
    Severe depression2 (2.4)
Social support59.99 ± 18.79
    Low social support11 (12.9)
    Moderate social support23 (27.1)
    High social support51 (60.0)
Cognitive function20.68 ± 6.02
    Normal cognitive function38 (44.7)
    Cognitive impairment47 (55.3)
Caregiver-related stigma69.87 ± 22.66
    No stigma60 (70.6)
    Mild stigma18 (21.2)
    Moderate stigma7 (8.2)
Resilience69.87 ± 22.66
    Low resilience42 (49.3)
    Intermediate resilience21 (24.7)
    High resilience22 (25.9)

1 Note: M, mean; SD, standard deviation.

Table 2.

Relationships among depression, social support, cognitive, stigma, and resilience by Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient.

VariableResilienceDepressionSocial supportCognitiveStigma
Resilience1
Depression–0.434**1
Social support  0.718**    −0.448**1
Cognitive  0.289**–0.193          0.345**1
Stigma–0.456**    0.353**          −0.341 **–0.1691

1 Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).

Table 3.

Crude and adjusted coefficients of resilience.

VariableBCrude 95% CIP-valueBAdjusted* 95% CIP-value
Depression–2.00–2.91, –1.09<0.001–1.93–2.85, –1.00<0.001
Social support  0.870.68, 1.05<0.0010.890.69, 1.08<0.001
Cognitive  1.090.30, 1.870.0071.120.22, 2.01  0.016
Stigma–0.94–1.34, –0.54<0.001–0.95–1.36, –0.54<0.001

1 Note: CI, confidence interval.

2* Adjusted for age, sex, marital status, educational attainment, and primary caregivers.

Table 4.

Final model of factors predicting resilience.

FactorBSE (b)βtP-value95% CI
Depression–0.390.40–0.08–0.990.324–1.16, 0.39
Social support  0.72  0.11  0.606.83<0.001  0.51,0.93
Cognitive  0.12  0.29  0.03  0.39  0.696–0.47, 0.70
Stigma–0.45  0.17–0.22–2.72  0.008  –0.78, –0.12
Constant51.9513.433.88<0.00125.22, 78.69

1 Note: F (4, 80) = 26.79, P < 0.001, R2 = 0.573, adjusted R2 = 0.551.

2 CI, confidence interval.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/fon-2022-0046 | Journal eISSN: 2544-8994 | Journal ISSN: 2097-5368
Language: English
Page range: 361 - 369
Submitted on: Mar 22, 2022
Accepted on: Jun 22, 2022
Published on: Dec 31, 2022
Published by: Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

© 2022 Wattana Tejakum, Thitipong Tankumpuan, Wanich Suksatan, Jirapan Saboonma, Supapak Phetrasuwan, Tamar Rodney, published by Shanxi Medical Periodical Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.