How Do Parents Experience Overnight Respite? Parent-Reported Outcomes in Families of Children With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Sarah S Mire, Erik W Carter, Sara Tomek and 3 others
Parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities who received overnight respite from one non-profit overwhelmingly reported positive effects on well-being, relationships, and daily activities.
The sample was narrow—mostly White, highly educated, middle-aged—so results may not reflect families facing greater barriers.
Key findings
1The majority of parents agreed or strongly agreed with 22 of the 23 items on the survey, with the highest agreement for improved mental and emotional health, access to sleep, time to recharge, and time with spouse or other children.
2Few statistically significant differences were found across child age, support needs, challenging behaviour, parent marital status, race, education, or number of children, and the small number of observed differences generally reflected small-to-moderate effect sizes.
3The sample was predominantly White, highly educated, and middle-aged, and the authors state that findings reflect the experiences of parents connected to a single respite provider and should not be interpreted as representative of all families of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
to read the rest of this summary — three full summaries a month, no card.
Already have an account?
What it does not show
Single-site, single-provider sample: all participants were already connected to one non-profit respite organisation, so findings describe families who had access rather than the broader population. Homogeneous sample: 80.3% White, 84.8% with a bachelor's degree or higher, 82.5% aged 40–59, and more than half reporting household income of $100 K or greater. Fathers, single parents, and families from minoritised groups were underrepresented. Cross-sectional design with no control group and no baseline measurement: parents reported how they felt about respite they had already received, not whether it changed their outcomes compared with not receiving it. The Respite Impact Survey was researcher-created and not previously validated; the authors note that principal components analyses represent an initial step in measurement development and do not constitute comprehensive validation. Ceiling effects and a forced-choice response format without a neutral option likely restricted the range of responses and reduced sensitivity to subgroup differences. The number of overnight respite nights received (dose) was not incorporated into analyses, limiting detection of dose-response patterns. The spiritual needs subscale contained only two items, one of which ('Allowed me to participate more fully in church') was presented to all participants regardless of faith involvement, and had the highest skip rate on the survey.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest and report no funding.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →