You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Original research
Emotional work of getting help: a qualitative analysis of caregiver-perceived barriers to responding to childhood adversity
  1. Sarah Loveday1,
  2. Manisha Balgovind2,
  3. Tess Hall1,
  4. Sharon Goldfeld3,4,5,
  5. Lena Sanci6,
  6. Harriet Hiscock1,4,5
  1. 1 Health Services Research Group, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Faculty of Education, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Policy and Equity, Murdoch Children’s Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  4. 4 Department of Paediatrics, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  5. 5 Centre for Community Child Health, The Royal Children’s Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  6. 6 Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria, Australia
  1. Correspondence to Dr Sarah Loveday, Health Services, Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Parkville, VIC 3052, Australia; sarah.loveday{at}mcri.edu.au

Abstract

Objective To explore caregivers’ experiences and challenges of accessing help for adversity across both health and social care sectors.

Design Qualitative study design using semistructured interviews to explore how caregivers accessed services across health and social care. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Setting Families living in the city of Wyndham, Victoria, Australia.

Participants 17 caregivers of children aged 0–8 years.

Results Five main themes emerged. (1) Emotional work of getting help. Caregivers described that getting help for life challenges was both emotionally taxing and effortful. (2) Trusting relationships are key. Engagement was related to the degree of relational practice and whether they felt judged or demeaned. (3) Wanting to manage on your own. There was a strong desire by caregivers to be independent and to only seek help when it was absolutely necessary. (4) Importance of knowing help was available and how to access it. (5) Overcoming service access barriers including long waiting times, restricted service criteria, transport issues and out-of-pocket expenses.

Conclusions Caregivers highlighted a multitude of barriers to getting help for life challenges. Addressing these barriers will require services to become more flexible and codesign best approaches with families in ongoing partnership. Improving community knowledge of available services and building trusting relationships is the first step to overcoming these barriers.

  • Healthcare Disparities
  • Child Health Services
  • Qualitative research

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. Full coding tree can be made available on request.

https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2023-325473

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    Data availability statement

    Data are available upon reasonable request. Full coding tree can be made available on request.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors SL conceptualised and designed the study, collected the data, carried out the initial analyses, drafted the initial manuscript and reviewed and revised the manuscript. MB collected the data, carried out the initial analyses and reviewed and revised the manuscript. TH, HH, LS and SG conceptualised and designed the study, reviewed and revised the manuscript and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. SL is guarantor.

    • Funding This research is supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and Beyond Blue (grant number 1153419). HH is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (1136222). SG is supported by an NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (1155290). SL is supported by a University of Melbourne Research Training Program Scholarship.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.