Using Participatory Methods to Engage Diverse Families in Research about Resilience in Middle Childhood.

BACKGROUND: Resilience entails drawing on resources to navigate adversity; few measures exist to explore how children cope with adversity in varying cultural contexts. PURPOSE: We aimed to develop a socially-inclusive measure of child resilience by (1) co-designing methods to engage diverse families, and (2) identifying resilience factors. METHODS: We used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach to recruit Aboriginal families, refugee families, and families from hospital outpatient clinics. To triangulate findings and codesign methods, we held discussion groups with 21 service providers. Codesigned group-based visual methods were employed in discussion groups with 97 parents and 106 children (5-12 years). FINDINGS: Participants identified culturally-meaningful resilience factors such as loving family, speaking their home language (for families of Non-English speaking backgrounds). We discuss differences and commonalities across participant groups. CONCLUSION: Co-designing research that is both rigorous and inclusive is critical for gleaning culturally-meaningful data from diverse families.

What factors are associated with resilient outcomes in children exposed to social adversity? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Children exposed to social adversity-hardship as a result of social circumstances such as poverty or intergenerational trauma-are at increased risk of poor outcomes across the life course. Understanding what promotes resilient outcomes is essential for the development of evidence informed intervention strategies. We conducted a systematic review to identify how child resilience is measured and what factors are associated with resilient outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic search conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsychInfo from January 2004 to October 2018 using the keywords 'resilien* and child* in the title or abstract. Eligible studies: (1) described children aged 5-12 years; (2) identified exposure to social adversity; (3) identified resilience; and (4) investigated factors associated with resilience. OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) approaches to identifying resilience and (2) factors associated with resilient outcomes. RESULTS: From 1979 studies retrieved, 30 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were moderate to high quality, with low cultural competency. Social adversity exposures included poverty, parent loss, maltreatment and war. Only two studies used a measure of child resilience; neither was psychometrically validated. Remaining studies classified children as resilient if they showed positive outcomes (eg, mental health or academic achievement) despite adversity. A range of child, family, school and community factors were associated with resilient outcomes, with individual factors most commonly investigated. The best available evidence was for cognitive skills, emotion regulation, relationships with caregivers and academic engagement. CONCLUSIONS: While there is huge variation in the type and severity of adversity that children experience, there is some evidence that specific individual, relational and school factors are associated with resilient outcomes across a range of contexts. Such factors provide an important starting point for effective public health interventions to promote resilience and to prevent or ameliorate the immediate and long-term impacts of social adversity on children.

Cultural safety and belonging for refugee background women attending group pregnancy care: An Australian qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Refugee women experience higher incidence of childbirth complications and poor pregnancy outcomes. Resettled refugee women often face multiple barriers accessing pregnancy care and navigating health systems in high income countries. METHODS: A community-based model of group pregnancy care for Karen women from Burma was co-designed by health services in consultation with Karen families in Melbourne, Australia. Focus groups were conducted with women who had participated to explore their experiences of using the program, and whether it had helped them feel prepared for childbirth and going home with a new baby. RESULTS: Nineteen women (average time in Australia 4.3 years) participated in two focus groups. Women reported feeling empowered and confident through learning about pregnancy and childbirth in the group setting. The collective sharing of stories in the facilitated environment allowed women to feel prepared, confident and reassured, with the greatest benefits coming from storytelling with peers, and developing trusting relationships with a team of professionals, with whom women were able to communicate in their own language. Women also discussed the pivotal role of the bicultural worker in the multidisciplinary care team. Challenges in the hospital during labor and birth were reported and included lack of professional interpreters and a lack of privacy. CONCLUSION: Group pregnancy care has the potential to increase refugee background women's access to pregnancy care and information, sense of belonging, cultural safety using services, preparation for labor and birth, and care of a newborn.