Submitted by: Heidi Liss Radunovich, PhD, Assistant Professor of Human Development

PDF Version

Salmela-Aro, K., Aunola, K., Saisto, T., Halmesmäki, E., & Nurmi, J. (2006). Couples share similar changes in depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction anticipating the birth of a child [Electronic version]. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 781-803.

Introduction

Although it is evident that the birth of a child has a large impact on the relationship of a couple, the exact mechanisms of how it affects the relationship are less clear. Previous studies have not looked at this issue longitudinally (following a couple over time), compared those having their first child with those having a later child, or looked at both members of the couple as well as their interaction. This study, which took place in Finland, takes a more thorough look at the adjustment of both members of the couple over time. They sought to examine both depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction in both members of a couple over time: as they were preparing for and after the birth of their first child; whether the two issues impacted one another; whether there were differences between it being a first or later child; and did likelihood of divorce increase with the birth of a child, and with changes in depressive symptoms and marital satisfaction.

Methodology

Although 407 women who attended prenatal care were originally contacted to participate in the study, 320 women agreed to participate (32 refused, 20 miscarried, and 28 were single so not eligible for the study). There were 260 male partners of these women who also participated in the study. Over the course of the study both members of the couple were surveyed 4 times: early in the pregnancy (around 12 weeks), one month before the birth (around 36 weeks), 3 months after the birth, and around 2 years after the birth. At the end of the study, 187 females and 127 males had completed all measures. Interestingly, those who dropped out of the study had lower marital satisfaction at the start of the study.

Depression was examined at all 4 points by using the Beck Depression Inventory; the couple’s marital satisfaction was examined at all 4 points by using the Dyadic Adjustment Scale; and whether or not a couple had divorced was assessed at point 4 (2 years after birth) by using the Life Changes Questionnaire. Additionally, age, education, employment, marital status, and number of children were recorded at the start of the study. Multilevel modeling was used to examine the relationships among the variables for each individual and for the couple as a unit.

Main Ideas

Depression and relationship satisfaction seemed consistent within a couple, such that higher depressive symptoms in one spouse meant that the other spouse was likely to have depressive symptoms, and level of relationship satisfaction was similar for each member in a couple. Also, depression and relationship satisfaction seemed to go together, such that higher depressive symptoms were associated with lower relationship satisfaction, and lower depressive symptoms with higher relationship satisfaction. However, it is unclear why they go together: do depressive symptoms lead to lower relationship satisfaction, or does lower relationship satisfaction lead to more depressive symptoms (or both)?

Another interesting finding was that those who had more depressive symptoms before the birth of the baby showed a reduction in symptoms after the birth of the baby, but those with lower levels of symptoms at the start showed an increase in depressive symptoms after the birth of the baby. There was a similar finding for relationship satisfaction: low relationship satisfaction at the start of the pregnancy was associated with higher satisfaction after the birth, and higher relationship satisfaction before the birth was associated with lower relationship satisfaction after the birth. There were also gender differences: women were more likely to have depressive symptoms than men, but women were more satisfied with the relationship before the birth of the baby, and showed less of a decrease in satisfaction after the birth of the baby than did men. Interestingly, those couples that already had children showed more depressive symptoms and lower relationship satisfaction during this pregnancy, but there was improvement after birth.

Some of these findings differ from the results of other studies. The research literature has shown that how satisfied you are in your relationship decreased for most couples after the birth of a child, but couples who were happier in their relationship before the baby had less of a decrease in satisfaction (e.g., Shapiro, Gottman, & Carrere, 2000). It is unclear why this study found different results, but perhaps some of it could be related to cultural differences (previous studies were conducted in the US or similar countries), or societal policy differences (in Finland there is state supported medical care, paid time off from work, and supplemental money provided to parents until the child is age 3) that could lead to different results. It could also be the way that researchers look at the issues (how marital satisfaction is measured and when).

Implications for Extension Programs

For Extension agents who work with parents expecting a child (particularly their first child), it may be good to inform them that symptoms of depression are common after the birth of the child, especially for women. It may also be good to prepare expectant parents for some of the changes that could occur in their relationship with their partner, and help them to strengthen their relationship in anticipation of the demands of a new baby. However, it is important to remember that not all couples are the same, and culture or circumstances may play a part in the changes that occur with the birth of a child.

Conclusion

Although previous research suggests that couples’ satisfaction with their relationship reduces with the birth of a child, and that happiness with the relationship prior to the birth of a child predicts happiness after the birth of the child, this study suggests that this mechanism may not work the same way in all couples or in all cultures. In this study couples whose relationships were unhappy prior to the birth of the child showed improvement, while those who were happy prior to the birth of the child showed reductions in happiness. There were consistent reports from both partners in a couple: if one person was happy in the relationship, the other would report a similar level of happiness. Finally, it was found that depressive symptoms and relationship satisfaction had an inverse relationship, so those with high levels of depressive symptoms had lower levels of relationship satisfaction, while those with fewer depressive symptoms reported higher levels of relationship satisfaction. Although these states (depressive symptoms and relationship satisfaction) vary together, it is unclear whether one causes the other.

Additional References

Shapiro, A.F., Gottman, J., & Carrere (2000). The baby and the marriage: Identifying factors that buffer against decline in marital satisfaction after the first baby arrives. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 59-70.

Submitted by: Hyun-Jeong Lee, Ph.D., Assistant Professor/Housing Specialist

PDF File

Heneman, K., and Zidenberg-Cherr, S. October – December 2006. “Is Lead Toxicity Still a Risk to U.S. Children?” California Agriculture 60 (4): 180-184.

Introduction

Lead is highly toxic and can be found in products we may contact in and around our homes on a daily basis (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] 2007). According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] surveillance data (CDC 2007), the rate of children who were found to have significant amount of lead in their blood (at or above 10 microgram per one deciliter, 10μg/dL) was declined from 1997 to 2005. However, EPA (2004) estimates that the United States still have 430,000 children age between 1 and 5 with blood-lead level (BLL) above 10μg/dL. Furthermore, the U.S. children are still exposed to the lead poisoning risks through many sources. The researchers of this study summarize current issues on U.S. children lead poisoning problems.

Main Ideas

Where We Find Lead

In the past, lead was used to make paint for easier application and lead-based paint (more than 0.06% lead by weight), remains in old houses, furniture, and even on children’s toys. In 1978, the Consumer Product Safety Commission prohibited to use lead-based paint on interior and exterior residential surfaces, toys, and furniture (CDC 1991). This means residents living in houses built after 1978 have less chance of exposure to lead hazards than pre-1978 house residents do. It does not mean that post-1978 houses are free from lead poisoning risk. Some older house plumbing contains lead and you may absorb it by drinking water directly from the old plumbing. We also can absorb lead from dust in the air we breathe. Lead can also come into your home if any of your household members works with lead and does not clean his/her body and clothes before coming home. Surprisingly, lead is still found on pottery, ceramic cookware, toys and even candies that are imported from certain foreign countries.

Lead Poisoning and Health Impact

Lead poisoning was referred as “one of the most common and preventable pediatric health problems.” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (CDC 1991). Lead poisoning influences children much more seriously than adults. There are many reasons that young children have higher risk of lead poisoning and lead poisoning more seriously affects their health. In comparison to adults, in regards to body size, children drink more water, eat more food, and breathe more air. Their bodies are growing and absorb more lead. Lead damages their brain and nervous system are more easily. Most of all, they usually chew and suck almost everything (EPA 2007).

High levels of lead in children body may damage their brains, nervous system, and kidney, reduce IQ, slow down growth, and cause hearing problems. In addition, lead can cause behavior and learning problems and can result in coma, convulsions, and even death (EPA 2007; CDC 1991).

Suggestions to Prevent Lead Poisoning in Children

Consult your doctor for a blood lead level screening test if your children are age 72 months or younger, especially if you are living in a house built before 1978. Wash yourself and your babies often to reduce absorbance of lead. If you see any paint chips, clean them immediately. Regularly clean dust from your floors, window frames, windowsills, and other surface weekly. If you think your home has a lead problem contact professionals for inspection and necessary abatement. Children who eat nutritious foods with high iron and calcium (e.g., spinach and dairy products) tend to absorb less lead to their body. Make sure your children eat good foods to prevent lead poisoning (EPA, 2007).

Implications for Extension Programs

Outreach education activities of childhood lead poisoning prevention need to reach underserved populations, including low-income families reside in poor quality old houses and minorities speaking foreign languages, to emphasize the dangers of lead and teach families to reduce the harmful effects of lead in their child’s environment.

Further Information

Please visit EPA and CDC websites below for up-to-date information on children lead poisoning prevention:

EPA

CDC

Also, you can visit Florida Department of Health Lead Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for information.

Additional References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1991). A statement by the centers for disease control and prevention. Retrieved on March 7, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). Measure B1: Lead in the blood of children. Retrieved on March 7, 2007.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Lead in paint, dust, and soil. Retrieved on March 7, 2007.

Submitted by: Suzanna Smith, Ph.D., MSW, CFLE, Associate Professor, Human Development

PDF Version

DeVore, S. & Bowers, B. (2007). Childcare for children with disabilities. Infants & Young Children, 19(3), 203-212.

Working parents often face difficult choices about how to take care of their children when they are at work. They often search for the “right” childcare provider, someone who will meet their child’s needs, and someone they can afford, at a convenient location.

What about the difficulties that working parents of children with disabilities face? Finding childcare can be especially challenging for these families, because they need a provider that can accommodate their child’s special needs, in addition to being affordable and of good quality.

According to DeVore and Bowers (2006) in their recent study published in Infants and Young Children, “about 60% of mothers of children with disabilities are employed and need…childcare” (p. 203). In this exploratory study with a small sample of parents of children with disabilities and childcare providers, researchers looked closely at how families of children with disabilities find, choose, and maintain the childcare they need.

Methods

The researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 18 parents and 4 childcare providers who cared for children with disabilities. They located the sample through two resource and referral agencies and 2 early intervention programs. With grounded theory to guide the study, the researchers asked unstructured open-ended questions and then revised these questions based on what they were learning from the research. Interviews were audio taped and transcribed. Line by line dimensional analysis of the interviews brought out themes and enable comparisons. Summaries of results were mailed to participants and were clarified during follow-up interviews. A panel of researchers also coded and reviewed the transcripts and analyses to verify the results.

Results

All families selected for the study had at least one child age 6 or younger, with developmental delays and/or special healthcare needs such as such as autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, and speech delay. All families used from 20-45 hours of non-parental care per week in one or a combination of the following: center based childcare, family childcare in the child care provider’s home, care in a relative’s home, a preschool program at a school, in-home therapeutic services, or a nanny in the family’s home (p. 205). Most families lived in metropolitan areas in the county where the study was conducted

Like other working parents, these families first created a pool of providers based on professional and personal recommendations. When narrowing down their pool, they looked at practical factors such as cost, and group size. Then parents screened providers, usually over the phone, and followed up with a visit to childcare facilities they liked.

Parents were, as could be expected, looking for a provider “who could meet their child’s special developmental needs” (p. 208). Yet, while most families cycled through several different childcare arrangements, trying to find childcare that worked for them, a few found successful childcare situations the first time (p. 208). What made the difference? In lasting childcare arrangements, parents weren’t just looking for specialized care, but for a cooperative relationship with the childcare provider. Those parents and providers quickly built a partnership and worked together to solve problems. These partnering parents and providers were lucky in other ways, too—the parents had flexible work schedules, a supportive adult living with them, and a second income so they could take the time to find the right provider and resolve issues that might arise. Families that were less successful “were often under time pressures to find care,” had financial limitations, and “felt somewhat isolated” (p. 210).

Conclusions

The study found that partnerships between parents and childcare providers were an important factor in successful childcare arrangements for children with disabilities. They also point out that families need specific resources to manage their searches including “time, adults support, and economic stability” (p. 210). Having access to these resources enabled families to take the time to find successful childcare. The researchers recommend that families contact childcare information and referral services for individualized help in locating the kind of care the family needs and other resources in the community that can help.

Implications for Extension

Extension can work with childcare resource and referral agencies, early intervention specialists, and providers to offer training on improving parent-provider communication and developing partnerships for caring for children with disabilities. In parent education programs, Extension faculty can encourage parents of children with disabilities to develop a system for identifying potential childcare providers; and for finding a provider the family can talk with openly, and who is willing to work with parents to solve problems. Extension can work with childcare resource and referral agencies, children’s coalitions, and policy makers, to bring to light the childcare needs of children with disabilities.

Want to know more about childcare for children with disabilities? Sign up for session 25 at the May Extension symposium, Building Quality Child Care in Florida. For more information, contact Heidi Radunovich