Skip to main content
Duke University Libraries
DukeSpace Scholarship by Duke Authors
  • Login
  • Ask
  • Menu
  • Login
  • Ask a Librarian
  • Search & Find
  • Using the Library
  • Research Support
  • Course Support
  • Libraries
  • About
View Item 
  •   DukeSpace
  • Duke Scholarly Works
  • Scholarly Articles
  • View Item
  •   DukeSpace
  • Duke Scholarly Works
  • Scholarly Articles
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

A Comparison of the Wellbeing of Orphans and Abandoned Children Ages 6-12 in Institutional and Community-Based Care Settings in 5 Less Wealthy Nations

Thumbnail
View / Download
415.3 Kb
Date
2009
Authors
Whetten, Kathryn
Ostermann, Jan
Whetten, Rachel A
Pence, Brian W
O'Donnell, Karen
Messer, Lynne C
Thielman, Nathan M
Positive Outcomes for Orphans (POFO) Research Team
Show More
(8 total)
Repository Usage Stats
470
views
273
downloads
Abstract
Background: Leaders are struggling to care for the estimated 143,000,000 orphans and millions more abandoned children worldwide. Global policy makers are advocating that institution-living orphans and abandoned children (OAC) be moved as quickly as possible to a residential family setting and that institutional care be used as a last resort. This analysis tests the hypothesis that institutional care for OAC aged 6-12 is associated with worse health and wellbeing than community residential care using conservative two-tail tests. Methodology: The Positive Outcomes for Orphans (POFO) study employed two-stage random sampling survey methodology in 6 sites across 5 countries to identify 1,357 institution-living and 1,480 community-living OAC ages 6-12, 658 of whom were double-orphans or abandoned by both biological parents. Survey analytic techniques were used to compare cognitive functioning, emotion, behavior, physical health, and growth. Linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate the proportion of variability in child outcomes attributable to the study site, care setting, and child levels and institutional versus community care settings. Conservative analyses limited the community living children to double-orphans or abandoned children. Principal Findings: Health, emotional and cognitive functioning, and physical growth were no worse for institution-living than community-living OAC, and generally better than for community-living OAC cared for by persons other than a biological parent. Differences between study sites explained 2-23% of the total variability in child outcomes, while differences between care settings within sites explained 8-21%. Differences among children within care settings explained 64-87%. After adjusting for sites, age, and gender, institution vs. community-living explained only 0.3-7% of the variability in child outcomes. Conclusion: This study does not support the hypothesis that institutional care is systematically associated with poorer wellbeing than community care for OAC aged 6-12 in those countries facing the greatest OAC burden. Much greater variability among children within care settings was observed than among care settings type. Methodologically rigorous studies must be conducted in those countries facing the new OAC epidemic in order to understand which characteristics of care promote child wellbeing. Such characteristics may transcend the structural definitions of institutions or family homes.
Type
Other article
Subject
difficulties questionnaire
strengths
attachment
models
eritrea
romania
africa
malawi
aids
biology
multidisciplinary sciences
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/4517
Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1371/journal.pone.0008169
Citation
Whetten,Kathryn;Ostermann,Jan;Whetten,Rachel A.;Pence,Brian W.;O'Donnell,Karen;Messer,Lynne C.;Thielman,Nathan M.;Positive Outcomes Orphans (POFO). 2009. A Comparison of the Wellbeing of Orphans and Abandoned Children Ages 6-12 in Institutional and Community-Based Care Settings in 5 Less Wealthy Nations. Plos One 4(12): e8169-e8169.
Collections
  • Scholarly Articles
More Info
Show full item record

Scholars@Duke

Lynne Corinne Messer

Adjunct Assistant Professor of Global Health
This author no longer has a Scholars@Duke profile, so the information shown here reflects their Duke status at the time this item was deposited.

Jan Ostermann

Adjunct Associate Professor of Global Health

Brian Wells Pence

Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Family Medicine and Community Health
Brian Wells Pence, PhD MPH, is trained as an infectious diseases epidemiologist. His research interests focus primarily on the impact of trauma, mental illness, and other psychosocial characteristics on HIV-related behaviors and clinical outcomes and on the development of effective and practical interventiosn to address mental illness in HIV patients.
Thielman

Nathan Maclyn Thielman

Professor of Medicine
Broadly, my research focuses on a range of clinical and social issues that affect persons living with or at risk for HIV infection in resource-poor settings. In Tanzania, our group is applying novel methods to optimize HIV testing uptake among high-risk groups. We recently demonstrated that the Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE), a form of stated preference survey research, is a robust tool for identifying (a) which characteristics of HIV testing options are most preferred by different populati
Whetten

Kathryn Whetten

Professor in the Sanford School of Public Policy
Director, Center for Health Policy and Inequalities ResearchResearch Director, Hart Fellows Program,Professor, Public Policy and Global Health Professor, Nursing and Community & Family Medicine Kathryn Whetten (PhD) is Chair of the Maternal, Adolescent and Child Health working group, and she is the Co-Chair of the University Diversity Task Force and the Sanford Diversity Committee. Kathryn Whetten is the Principal Investigator on
More Authors
Alphabetical list of authors with Scholars@Duke profiles.
Open Access

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy

Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles


Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info

Make Your Work Available Here

How to Deposit

Browse

All of DukeSpaceCommunities & CollectionsAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesTypesBy Issue DateDepartmentsAffiliations of Duke Author(s)SubjectsBy Submit Date

My Account

LoginRegister

Statistics

View Usage Statistics
Duke University Libraries

Contact Us

411 Chapel Drive
Durham, NC 27708
(919) 660-5870
Perkins Library Service Desk

Digital Repositories at Duke

  • Report a problem with the repositories
  • About digital repositories at Duke
  • Accessibility Policy
  • Deaccession and DMCA Takedown Policy

TwitterFacebookYouTubeFlickrInstagramBlogs

Sign Up for Our Newsletter
  • Re-use & Attribution / Privacy
  • Harmful Language Statement
  • Support the Libraries
Duke University