Background Prevalence rates of child illness according to parents have been found to vary greatly in the general population, with even less known about children of military parents. Mothers are generally considered more informed about their children's problems than fathers. This paper aimed to establish the prevalence of serious illness and disability among children from military families, noting the difference between parental reports.
Methods Male serving and ex-serving personnel with children aged 3–16 years were invited to take part in an online questionnaire and telephone interview based on their child's health. The mothers of their children were invited via post if the father gave permission to make contact. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Cohen's kappa.
Results 378 fathers and 383 mothers provided information for 610 children. The vast majority of parents did not perceive their child to have a serious illness or disability; fathers reported problems in 7.7% of their children (respiratory conditions most common), while mothers reported problems in 6.2% (physical health problems rated most prevalent). A moderate agreement was found between parent's reports; kappa=0.51 (p<0.001).
Conclusions/implications The prevalence of serious illnesses and disabilities is low among military children according to parent reports. Fathers were more likely to disclose a problem in their child, and these differences were visible in the type of problem reported also. This disparity suggests mothers' and fathers' views should both be considered when making decisions that involve the child's care, in addition to clinical diagnoses.
- Parent report
- Received June 3, 2016.
- Revision received September 14, 2016.
- Accepted October 26, 2016.
- Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors All authors conceived plans for data analysis. CKK conducted data analysis and drafted the manuscript; SAMS and NTF reviewed and provided feedback. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The study was funded by the US Department of Defense.
Competing interests CKK, SAMS and NTF are employed by King's College London, which receives funding from the UK Ministry of Defence. This did not impact upon completion of the present manuscript.
Ethics approval Ethical approval was sought and received from the US Department of Defense's research ethics committee, the UK Ministry of Defence's research ethics committee and King's College Hospital local research ethics committee.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.