ORI GI NAL PAPER

Children of Mentally Ill Parents Participating in Preventive

Support Groups: Parental Diagnoses and Child Risk
Floor van Santvoort

Clemens M. H. Hosman

Karin T. M. van Doesum

Jan M. A. M. Janssens
Published online: 28 November 2012
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012
Abstract In the Netherlands, preventive support groups
are offered to children of mentally ill parents. Given the
variety of parental diagnoses it might be questionable if
offering a standardized program for all these children is the
most effective response. While no overall knowledge exists
about the type of parental disorder and varying risk levels and
support needs among the participating children, we exam-
ined whether there are differences between these children
that are related to their parents diagnoses. With question-
naires we assessed risk factors in 122 mentally ill parents and
their children: high parental illness severity, low perceived
parental competence, parentchild interaction problems,
poor family functioning, difcult child temperament, and
low child competence. We also assessed the childrens
psychosocial problems and negative cognitions about their
parents illness. Results showed that most parents had
co-morbidity (multiple diagnoses) and/or personality disor-
ders. Children of parents with either of these conditions were
more likely to be exposed to the risk factors: high parental
illness severity, low perceived parental competence, prob-
lematic parentchild interaction, and low perceived child
competence, compared to children of parents without these
conditions. Theywere alsofacedwithmore riskfactors andhad
more psychosocial problems and negative cognitions. From
these results we may conclude that children of parents with
co-morbidity and/or personality disorders require more
extensive support than children of parents without these
conditions. We suggest strengthening the childrens com-
petence and involving parents as important focuses of pre-
ventive interventions for children at high risk. Longitudinal
studies should test these assumptions.
Keywords School-age children Mentally ill parents
Support groups Participant characteristics Prevention
Introduction
In the Netherlands, a country with 16.8 million inhabitants,
yearly 577,000 children aged 18 years or younger live with
a mentally ill parent, which is 17 % of the total child
population (Goossens and Van der Zanden 2012). Com-
parable percentages have been reported by survey studies
in other countries (Bassani et al. 2008; Maybery et al.
2009). Due to a unique nationwide approach, nearly all
Dutch mental health centers offer preventive interventions
for children of mentally ill parents as these children run a
high risk of developing a wide range of problems them-
selves (Leverton 2003; Rutter and Quinton 1984). Empir-
ical studies have reported risk levels for psychopathology
that are up to 13 times higher than in children of parents
without psychopathology (Dean et al. 2010; Schreier et al.
2008; Singh et al. 2007; Weissman et al. 2006). They are
also up to ve times more likely to use professional mental
health services (Goossens and Van der Zanden 2012;
Olfson et al. 2003) and show higher rates of suicidal
behavior (Barnow et al. 2006; Weissman et al. 1992)
substance abuse, and physical illnesses (Weissman et al.
2006). Even at primary school age, many of these children
have psychosocial problems and negative cognitions that
F. van Santvoort (&) C. M. H. Hosman
K. T. M. van Doesum
Department of Clinical Psychology, Behavioural Science
Institute, Radboud University, PO Box 9104,
6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands
e-mail: [email protected]
J. M. A. M. Janssens
Department of Medical Pedagogy, Behavioural Science Institute,
Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
1 3
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:6775
DOI 10.1007/s10826-012-9686-x
are related to the parental illness, like feelings of guilt,
shame, worry, and loneliness (Barnow et al. 2006;
Beardslee and Podorefsky 1988; Downey and Coyne 1990;
Hinshaw 2004; Turner et al. 1987). The increased risk of
these children appears to be the result of a complex inter-
play between an inherited genetic liability, neurobiological
risk factors, and a range of psychosocial risk and protective
factors (Goodman and Gotlib 1999; Hosman et al. 2009).
Over the years, a variety of preventive interventions have
been developed in the Netherlands and in other countries to
address the modiable psychosocial risk and protective fac-
tors (Reupert et al. 2012; Van Doesum and Hosman 2009).
One of the most frequently offered interventions in the
Netherlands is that of support groups for children, where they
meet, talk and play with other children of mentally ill parents
andreceive psycho-education, copingskill trainingandsocial
support. Nearly all Dutch mental health centers offer support
groups for the children of their clients. This standardized
intervention supervised by two mental health and prevention
experts is offered to children of different age-groups (67,
812, 1315, and 1625 years old) and involves 8 weekly
90-min sessions and a booster session after 23 months.
There is also one session for parents and an individual con-
cluding talk with each of the children and their parent(s).
Through four intermediate goals the intervention aims to
reduce problemdevelopment in these children: (1) increasing
the amount of social support; (2) decreasing negative cog-
nitions related to their parents illness, such as guilt, shame,
and loneliness; (3) improving feelings of competence in these
children; (4) improving parentchild interaction. Process
evaluations of mental health centers show that children,
parents and providers receive the support groups as very
helpful. During the last decade, other countries have also
started to offer these support groups (e.g. Australia, Scandi-
navian countries, USA, Belgium, Germany, and UK).
The Dutch support groups are intended for children of
parents with all kinds of psychiatric diagnoses and substance
use disorders. No distinction is made between axis I and axis
II disorders, between addiction and mental illnesses, or
between single diagnoses and co-morbidity (multiple diag-
noses), since it is generally assumed that many risk factors
that are encountered by these children are shared. For
instance, various studies on children of parents with different
diagnoses have shown that problemdevelopment in all these
children was related to the following risk factors: high
parental illness severity, negative interaction between parent
and child, low perceived parental competence, poor overall
family functioning, difcult child temperament, and low
feelings of competence in the child (Abela and Skitch 2007;
Barnow et al. 2006; Bruder-Costello et al. 2007; Dix and
Meunier 2009; Foster et al. 2008; Friedmann et al. 1997;
Hammen and Brennan 2003; Hussong et al. 2005; Newman
et al. 2007; Schenkel et al. 2008; Schreier et al. 2008).
However, some empirical studies did nd differences
between children of parents with different diagnoses. A
cross-sectional study by Barnow et al. (2006) showed that
children of mothers with borderline personality disorders
were at higher risk for a problematic motherchild interac-
tion and a difcult temperament, and had more emotional
and behavioral problems compared to children of depressed
mothers. A cross-sectional study by Biederman et al. (2001)
on children of parents with panic disorder and/or major
depression showed that children of parents with both anxiety
and depression fared worse than children of parents with
either anxiety or depression. The differences between these
children may have been caused by the different symptoms of
the parental disorders, parenting behaviors and genetic pre-
disposition, or by some disorders having a more negative
impact on parental functioning than others.
Regarding the support groups, the question therefore
arises whether it is appropriate to offer the same intervention
to all these children. If there are important differences
between the children in terms of specic risk factors, risk
intensity, or problem development, they may have different
needs for support, which might require more tailoring and
variation in the intensity of the support groups. Although
support groups address children of parents with a wide var-
iation of diagnoses, no information is currently available on
whether these groups are truly heterogeneous in this respect.
Hence, the rst aim of the present study was to examine the
diagnoses of the parents of the children participating in the
support groups. Second, the study aimed to reveal the extent
of variation in terms of risk factors, risk intensity, and child
problems among children of parents with different diagno-
ses. As empirical studies have repeatedly found that
co-morbid parental disorders and parental personality dis-
orders have a greater negative impact on children than single
parental disorders and axis-I disorders (Abela et al. 2005;
Barnow et al. 2006; Biederman et al. 2001; Rutter and
Quinton 1984), these comparisons were of considerable
interest. In line with earlier results, we expected that children
of parents with co-morbidity and personality disorders
would be more negatively affected by various risk factors
than children of parents without co-morbidity or personality
disorders. We assessed the following risk factors that have
often been studied in children of mentally ill parents:
parental illness severity, parental feelings of competence,
parentchild interaction, family functioning, the childs
temperament, and perceived competence. Moreover, we
hypothesized that children of parents with co-morbidity and
personality disorders, compared to children of mentally ill
parents without these conditions, would have a higher overall
risk in terms of the number of risk factors affecting them, and
would show more psychosocial problems and negative
cognitions regarding their parents illness, affecting their
functioning.
68 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:6775
1 3
Method
Participants
The participants were children recruited for the support
groups for children aged 812 years and their mentally ill
parent. The support groups were offered by 20 mental
health centers and centers for addiction throughout the
Netherlands. In the Netherlands, people receive treatment
from these specialized centers when referred by their
family physician. About 90 % of the clients receive out-
patient treatment, the other 10 % receive inpatient or partly
residential treatment (GGZ-Nederland 2010). To be
included in the study, parents had to meet the DSM-IV
diagnostic Axis I or Axis II criteria or ICD-10 criteria for a
mental disorder or substance use disorder. Due to the pri-
mary preventive character of the support groups, children
who had received psychological treatment during the last
year or who had a current psychiatric diagnosis were
excluded from the study. The study included 122 families.
Demographic characteristics of the families, the children,
and the ill parent are presented in Table 1. Two thirds of
the child participants were girls. More than fty percent
were living in one-parent families, all but one of them only
with their ill parent, while about ve percent resided with
foster parents. One sixth of the children had two ill parents,
while the mother was the ill parent in 78.4 % of the fam-
ilies with one ill parent. The majority of the ill parents had
been born in the Netherlands, had low or medium educa-
tion levels, and were not employed. Low-income house-
holds were overrepresented.
Procedure
During the intake sessions, the children and their ill parent
were invited by the group trainer (a mental health or pre-
vention worker) to participate in the present study. After
signing an informed consent form, children and parents
were asked to ll out a questionnaire, which should be
returned before start of the intervention. Families received
a 10 Euro reward after returning the questionnaires. In case
there were two or more children from the same family, one
child was randomly selected to be the actual study partic-
ipant. The study design, procedures and measures were
approved by a Medical Ethics Committee.
Measures
Diagnosis of the Parent
With the parents permission, their current DSM-IV or
ICD-10 diagnosis was obtained from their therapist (87 %
of the parents) or family physician. Both axis I and axis II
diagnoses were recorded. In the Netherlands, at start of a
treatment within a mental health center, clients are always
carefully diagnosed by a psychologist or psychiatrist.
Additionally, with permission of the client, the current
diagnosis is shared with the family physician.
Parental Illness Severity
Parents completed a Dutch version of the Brief Symptom
Inventory (BSI) (De Beurs 2006), a short version of the
SCL-90 (Derogatis 1975). The BSI is a 53-item question-
naire using a ve-point Likert scale. High scores reect
severe problems (a = .99).
Table 1 Child, family, and parent demographics (N = 122)
n % M SD
Child and family demographics
Age 10.30 1.37
Gender
Male 39 32.0
Female 83 68.0
Living situation
With two parents 54 44.3
With one parent 53 43.4
With parent and new partner 10 8.2
Not at home 5 4.1
Net household income (month)
Low (\1,400 Euros) 68 55.7
Medium (1,4002,300 Euros) 26 21.3
High ([2,300 Euros) 22 18.0
Unknown 6 4.9
Two ill parents?
Yes 20 16.4
Parent demographics
Age 40.01 5.97
Gender
Male 24 19.7
Female 98 80.3
Education
Low (B lower secondary) 59 48.4
Medium (higher secondarylower
tertiary)
44 36.1
High (Chigher tertiary) 16 13.1
Unknown 3 2.5
Working status
Not employed 89 73.0
Country of birth
Netherlands 105 86.1
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:6775 69
1 3
Feelings of Parental Competence
Feelings of parental competence were assessed with the
competence subscale of a Dutch revision of the Parenting
Stress Index (PSI) (Abidin 1983; De Brock et al. 1992).
Parents lled out this 13-item subscale using a six-point
Likert scale; high scores indicate high stress, which is
dened in the PSI manual as as low feelings of competence
(a = .91).
ParentChild Interaction
Children and parents both completed the ParentChild
Interaction Questionnaire (OKIV), a Dutch questionnaire
on the quality of the interaction in terms of conict man-
agement and acceptance (Lange 2001). High scores reect
good parentchild interaction. The questionnaire uses a
ve-point Likert scale and includes 25 items in the child
version (a = .91) and 21 items in the parent version
(a = .84).
Family Functioning: Support and Communication
A support and communication subscale of the Dutch
Questionnaire for Family Problems (VGP) was used to
assess the parents experience of family functioning in
terms of mutual support, understanding, trust, and com-
munication about major topics and difculties (Koot 1997).
High scores on this 13-item subscale with a three-point
Likert scale reect problems within the family regarding
mutual support and communication (a = .93).
Childs Temperament
Parents rated their childs temperament according to the
Quick Big Five (QBF), a short Dutch questionnaire
which assesses the ve basic personality characteristics:
extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional
stability, and openness to experience (Vermulst and Gerris
2009). The QBF includes 30 items with a seven-point
Likert scale; each of the ve characteristics is represented
by six items. The present study used the total score; a high
score represents an easy temperament (a = .87).
The Childs Perceived Competence
The childs perceived competence was assessed with a
Dutch version of the Self-Perception Prole for Children
(SPPC) (Harter 1985; Veerman et al. 1997). Children
completed three of the six subscales: social acceptance
(a = .82), behavioral conduct (a = .75), and global self-
worth (a = .75), which reect the childs competence
regarding peer contacts, the childs own behavior, and
global feelings of self-worth. Each subscale comprises six
items with a four-point Likert scale. High scores reect
high competence. A principal component analysis revealed
that the three subscales could be reduced to one underlying
factor reecting the childs competence (factor loadings of
.71, .70, and .85, respectively). The higher the factor score,
the higher the childs perceived competence.
Risk Intensity
The intensity of the childs risk was assessed as the number
of risk factors to which the child was exposed. This number
was determined by dichotomizing continuous scores on
each of the measured risk factors into problematic or not
problematic, according to the criteria provided by the
manuals of the individual questionnaires. When a manual
provided no problem criteria, we regarded scores diverging
by more than one standard deviation from a normative
population mean as a risk factor. Specically, scores had to
meet the following criteria to be regarded as a risk factor.
Parentchild interaction: lowest 20 % scores of the Dutch
normative population. Parental competence: highest 15 %
scores of the Dutch normative population. Family func-
tioning: above the normative cut-off score. Illness severity:
one standard deviation above the Dutch clinical normative
population mean. Child temperament: one standard devia-
tion below the mean of a Dutch normative group. Childs
perceived competence (factor score): one standard devia-
tion below the study sample mean (scores were normally
distributed). The number of risk factors was dened for
each child as the sum of the dichotomized risk factors. The
number of risk factors could not be calculated for 20.5 %
of the study sample due to missing values for one or more
risk factors. Missing values were replaced for the present
analysis using the expectation maximization (EM) method,
which uses parameters and maximum likelihood in itera-
tive processes to estimate missing values.
Psychosocial Problems of the Child
Psychosocial problems of the child were assessed with the
Strengths and Difculties Questionnaire (SDQ) (Goodman
1997). Parents lled out this 25-item questionnaire, which
uses a three-point Likert scale, about their childs strengths
and weaknesses in ve domains: emotional symptoms,
conduct problems, hyperactivityinattention, peer prob-
lems, and prosocial behavior. Together, the rst four
domains make up a sum score for psychosocial problems
(a = .83), with higher scores reecting more problems,
while high scores on the prosocial behavior subscale reect
strength. The Dutch guidelines of the SDQ state that scores
of 14 and higher indicate clinical problems (GGD-Neder-
land 2006).
70 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:6775
1 3
Childs Cognitions About Having a Parent with a Mental
Illness
Since no standardized instrument was available, four
questions were designed to assess whether a child experi-
enced worry, guilt, shame, and loneliness in relation to
their ill parent. Children could rate these questions on a
ve-point Likert scale (neveralways). A principal com-
ponents analysis showed one latent factor reecting cog-
nitions related to the parental illness (factor loadings were
.74, .74, .71, and .66, respectively). A high factor score
indicates negative cognitions.
Results
Parental Diagnoses
Figure 1 provides a global overview of the parental diag-
noses. Affective disorders and personality disorders,
especially borderline, appeared to be overrepresented in the
parents of the participating children. The right-most bar in
Fig. 1 shows that 65.5 % of the parents had at least two
diagnoses (co-morbidity).
Since there is much overlap between the diagnoses in
Fig. 1, more insight into the specic combinations of the
co-morbid parental disorders is provided in Fig. 2.
According to Fig. 2, 70 parents had a personality disorder
in combination with other co-morbid diagnoses. Moreover,
36 of these 70 co-morbid cases had personality disorders
co-occurring with an affective disorder. Co-morbidity with
a substance use disorder was present in 17 parents; the
co-morbid diagnosis of 15 parents was a personality dis-
order. Finally, 16 of the 39 parents without a personality
disorder (regardless of co-morbidity with other axis-I dis-
orders) had a diagnosis of bipolar affective disorder.
Risk Factors, Risk Intensity, and Child Functioning
The individual risk factors, the total number of risk factors,
and child psychosocial problems and negative cognitions
were compared between children of parents with and
without co-morbidity, as well as between children of par-
ents with and without personality disorders, using t tests
(one-tailed, signicance set at .05). Odds Ratios were
computed for each variable by dichotomizing the variable
into high versus low risk as described in the methods
section or in the footnote of Table 2. All variables were
normally distributed and no outliers were detected. In view
of the high overlap between personality disorders and
co-morbidity, which causes multicollinearity, it was not
possible to identify which of these two predictors was most
strongly related to child functioning. Furthermore, the high
rates of co-morbidity impeded comparisons between spe-
cic parental diagnoses.
Table 2 shows that parents with co-morbid diagnoses
had signicantly higher illness severity (OR = 1.98) and
lower feelings of parental competence (OR = 1.94), than
parents without co-morbidity. The children of parents with
co-morbidity also had lower perceived competence
(OR = 3.46) than those of parents without co-morbidity.
Moreover, the children were confronted with more risk
factors (OR = 1.49), and had more psychosocial problems
(OR = 1.68) and negative cognitions (OR = 1.46) than
children of parents with one diagnosis. A marginally sig-
nicant difference was found for the child-reported quality
of parentchild interaction, which was poorer in children of
parents with co-morbidity (p = .07, OR = 2.35).
Compared to parents with only axis I disorder(s), parents
with a personality disorder had higher illness severity (OR =
1.70) and lower feelings of parental competence (OR = 1.62).
The children of parents with a personality disorder reported
signicantly lower quality of interaction with their parents
(OR = 1.55). Children of parents with a personality disorder
also had lower perceived competence (p = .055, OR = 3.16)
and more risk factors (p = .059, OR = 1.49) than children of
parents without personality disorders, though the differences
were only marginally signicant.
Discussion
This study provided insight in children of mentally ill
parents who participate in Dutch preventive support groups
aimed at decreasing the childrens risk of future problem
development and enhancing their strengths. Specically, it
was studied whether there were differences in risk factors,
risk intensity and problems between these children that are
related to their parents diagnoses. Outcomes showed that
most children had a parent with co-morbidity or a Fig. 1 Parental axis I and axis II diagnoses: a global overview
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:6775 71
1 3
personality disorder. In line with our expectations, children
of parents with co-morbidity or a personality disorder were
exposed to a higher risk. In terms of specic risk factors,
their parents were characterized by higher illness severity
and poorer parental competence than parents without these
conditions. Children of parents with personality disorders
were also more likely to perceive the interaction with their
parent as poor. Furthermore, children of parents with
co-morbidity perceived lower competence, were affected
by a higher number of risk factors, and had more psycho-
social problems and negative cognitions compared to
children of parents with one diagnosis.
The results of this study revealed that most children
participating in the support groups have parents with
severe and chronic mental disorders. Children of parents
with severe or chronic disorders may be more likely to
participate in support groups due to the more frequent
contacts between their parents and mental health services,
increasing the likelihood that participation of their chil-
dren in a support group is discussed by a mental health
professional. Moreover, the risk these parents might
present to their children might be more evident to many
mental health professionals, increasing their motivation
for referral.
Fig. 2 Parental single and co-
morbid axis I and/or axis II
diagnoses: a detailed overview
72 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:6775
1 3
In view of the high overlap between co-morbidity and
personality disorders it was not possible to disentangle the
unique effects of these two conditions or their interaction
effects. Nevertheless, slightly more signicant differences
were found between children of parents with and without
co-morbidity than between children of parents with and
without personality disorders, which may suggest that
co-morbidity is more strongly related to child risk than
personality disorders. However, if we pay no attention to
signicance levels but just look at the means, children of
parents with co-morbidity as well as children of parents
with personality disorders have a tendency to fare worse
than their comparison groups on nearly all variables.
Hence, our results should be interpreted very cautiously,
and further research is highly recommended to study the
unique and shared contributions of parental co-morbidity
and personality disorders to child risk.
The high rates of co-morbidity impeded comparisons
among children of parents with certain specic disorders,
for instance unipolar depression versus bipolar depression.
Only one third of the children in our study sample had a
parent with a single diagnosis. Since diagnoses were
diverse in this sample, further comparisons would suffer
too much from low study power. Since the co-morbidity
rates in our study resemble the co-morbidity rates found in
other patient studies (Zimmerman et al. 2008) it can be
questioned to what extent it is possible to study the unique
contributions of various specic parental disorders to child
risk. As mental disorders hardly ever exist on their own,
children are usually affected by a mixture of parental
problems. In any case, co-morbidity should be carefully
taken into account when studying the unique effects of
specic parental disorders on child risk.
Contrary to our hypotheses, no signicant differences
between children of parents with or without the relevant
conditions were found for some of the variables we studied.
These variablesparents interaction with child, child
temperament, and family functioningwere assessed by
parents reports about their children. This may reect the
relative lack of awareness among many parents regarding
the potential negative impact of their illness on their chil-
dren and other family members. This is why parents are
also involved in the support groups through several parent
sessions, in order to increase their awareness of the
potential detrimental consequences for their children.
Although the question whether support groups should be
more closely tailored to the specic requirements of the
participants, cannot be answered by the cross-sectional
design of our study, the ndings of this study seem to
indicate that not all participants have similar needs. The
higher risk in children of parents with co-morbidity and/or
personality disorders might imply that they require more
extensive support than children of parents without these
conditions. The high odds ratios shown for child compe-
tence might reveal the importance of strengthening these
feelings in the children. A high perceived competence and
self-esteem appear to be important protective factors for
the development of psychopathology in children (Beards-
lee and Podorefsky 1988; Zimmerman et al. 1997). Apart
from supporting the children, it might also be important to
Table 2 Child risk factors, risk severity, and functioning in relation to their parents co-morbidity or personality disorder
df One disorder Co-morbidity t OR
a
No personality
disorder
Personality
disorder
t OR
a
n (% girls) 42 (76.2 % girl) 80 (63.8 % girl) 39 (69.2 % girl) 83 (67.5 % girl)
Risk factors M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Parental illness severity 116 1.22 (.87) 1.52 (.89) 1.76* 1.98 1.19 (.91) 1.52 (.87) 1.91* 1.70
Parental competence
b
117 34.13 (12.87) 38.33 (13.06) 1.67* 1.94 33.32 (12.74) 38.55 (13.00) 2.06* 1.62
Parents interaction with
child
119 83.23 (10.25) 82.58 (11.63) -.31 .89 84.59 (10.54) 81.96 (11.37) -1.22 1.50
Childs interaction with
parent
113 100.87 (11.93) 96.90 (14.59) -1.48 2.35 102.23 (13.47) 96.48 (13.66) -2.10* 1.55
Family functioning
c
113 12.09 (6.99) 13.68 (7.04) 1.15 1.09 13.60 (7.08) 12.91 (7.05) -.48 .88
Childs temperament 116 138.83 (25.21) 141.79 (20.40) .69 .92 140.14 (25.75) 141.08 (20.36) .21 .94
Childs competence 113 .25 (.75) -.10 (1.15) -1.96* 3.46 .24 (.84) -.09 (1.11) -1.61 3.16
Number of risk factors 120 1.79 (1.41) 2.34 (1.65) 1.85* 1.49 1.82 (1.50) 2.30 (1.61) 1.57 1.49
Psychosocial problems 112 12.68 (6.74) 15.24 (7.35) 1.83* 1.68 13.30 (7.46) 14.84 (7.09) 1.07 1.85
Negative cognitions 114 -.36 (1.07) .04 (.97) 2.04* 1.46 -.16 (1.00) -.07 (1.04) .41 .79
* Differs signicantly from comparison group (p \.05, one-tailed);
a
Odds ratios represent risk on dichotomized risk factors (as dened in
Methods section) by children of parents with co-morbidity (or personality disorder) compared to children of parents without co-morbidity (or
personality disorder);
b
high score = low competence;
c
high score = poor family functioning; the number of risk factors and negative cog-
nitions were dichotomized on the study group median, and psychosocial problems on the SDQ clinical cut-off score of 14
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:6775 73
1 3
involve their parents, and provide extra parent and family
support if required. Parental involvement has shown to be
one of the strongest predictors for effectiveness of various
child interventions (Blok et al. 2005; Riosa et al. 2011).
Support groups could for instance be offered to these
children in combination with a family talk intervention
(Beardslee et al. 2007), parentchild interaction training,
parenting training, or practical family support. On the other
hand, one could also consider whether children of parents
without co-morbidity and personality disorders require
support groups at the intensity currently being offered.
Although we acknowledge that all children of mentally ill
parents need some extra support, these children may also
benet from support groups with fewer sessions, or more
distant interventions, like brochures and websites. How-
ever, longitudinal studies are required to test the hypothe-
ses posed in this paragraph. Moreover, it should be studied
whether support groups are effective in preventing problem
development in these children, and not cause detrimental
effects.
When interpreting the results of this study, some limi-
tations should be kept in mind. First, we studied a selected
sample of children of mentally ill parents, as we included
only children with parents who were able to ll out a
questionnaire themselves. This may have led to the
exclusion of children of parents with diagnoses such as
schizophrenia and substance use disorders, who are more
likely to be absent due to psychiatric admissions, court
custody or parental divorce. Second, we used only one
informant (i.e. the child or the parent) for each variable,
which may have led to subjective judgements. Third, the
small sample size and the overrepresentation in the groups
of children with parents with co-morbidity and personality
disorders reduced the studys power to detect signicant
differences. Fourth, it was not possible to draw any causal
conclusions, due to the cross-sectional design of the study.
We recommend further longitudinal studies into risk pre-
diction in children of parents with co-morbidity or per-
sonality disorders, with larger sample sizes and using
multiple informants.
Nevertheless, this study clearly showed that most chil-
dren who participate in support groups have parents with
serious and chronic mental illnesses. The children of these
parents are confronted with multiple risk factors and already
have signicant problems regarding their own functioning.
These children appear to be in great need of preventive
interventions, which shows that the recruitment for these
support groups among adult mental health centers, where
these parents are usually treated, is a suitable strategy for
selecting the child participants at highest risk. Nevertheless,
not all children at high risk are reached through this strat-
egy, as a substantial proportion of parents with serious
mental illnesses do not receive any form of psychological
treatment (Kessler et al. 2001). Hence, expanding the
population of high-risk children reached by support groups
requires other recruitment strategies to be used as well, for
instance through family physicians, schools, and internet.
Moreover, lower risk in children does not mean that these
children need no support; support for them might prevent
risk increase and problem development in the future.
References
Abela, J. R., & Skitch, S. A. (2007). Dysfunctional attitudes, self-
esteem, and hassles: Cognitive vulnerability to depression in
children of affectively ill parents. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 45, 11271140.
Abela, J. R., Skitch, S. A., Auerbach, R. P., & Adams, P. (2005). The
impact of parental borderline personality disorder on vulnera-
bility to depression in children of affectively ill parents. Journal
of Personality Disorders, 19, 6883.
Abidin, R. R. (1983). Parenting Stress Index: Manual. Charlottes-
ville: Pediatric Psychology Press.
Barnow, S., Spitzer, C., Grabe, H. J., Kessler, C., & Freyberger, H. J.
(2006). Individual characteristics, familial experience, and
psychopathology in children of mothers with borderline person-
ality disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 45, 965972.
Bassani, D. G., Padoin, C. V., & Veldhuizen, S. (2008). Counting
children at risk: Exploring a method to estimate the number of
children exposed to parental mental illness using adult health
survey data. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology,
43, 927935.
Beardslee, W. R., & Podorefsky, D. (1988). Resilient adolescents
whose parents have serious affective and other psychiatric
disorders: Importance of self-understanding and relationships.
American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 6369.
Beardslee, W. R., Wright, E. J., Gladstone, T. R., & Forbes, P. (2007).
Long-term effects from a randomized trial of two public health
preventive interventions for parental depression. Journal of
Family Psychology, 21, 703713.
Biederman, J., Hirshfeld-Becker, D. R., Rosenbaum, J. F., Herot, C.,
Friedman, D., Snidman, N., et al. (2001). Further evidence of
association between behavioral inhibition and social anxiety in
children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 16731679.
Blok, H., Fukkink, R. G., Gebhardt, E. C., & Leseman, P. P. (2005).
The relevance of delivery mode and other programme charac-
teristics for the effectiveness of early childhood intervention.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 3547.
Bruder-Costello, B., Warner, V., Talati, A., Nomura, Y., Bruder, G.,
& Weissman, M. (2007). Temperament among offspring at high
and low risk for depression. Psychiatry Research, 153, 145151.
De Beurs, E. (2006). Brief symptom inventory. Handleiding (Manual).
Leiden: PITS.
De Brock, A. J. L. L., Vermulst, A. A., Gerris, J. R. M., & Abidin, R.
R. (1992). NOSI, Nijmeegse Ouderlijke Stress Index. Experim-
entele versie. Handleiding (Parental Stress Index. Experimental
version. Manual). Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Dean, K., Stevens, H., Mortensen, P. B., Murray, R. M., Walsh, E., &
Pedersen, C. B. (2010). Full spectrum of psychiatric outcomes
among offspring with parental history of mental disorder.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 67, 822829.
Derogatis, L. R. (1975). The symptom checklist-90-R. Baltimore, MD:
Clinical Psychometric Research.
74 J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:6775
1 3
Dix, T., & Meunier, L. N. (2009). Depressive symptoms and
parenting competence: An analysis of 13 regulatory processes.
Developmental Review, 29, 4568.
Downey, G., & Coyne, J. C. (1990). Children of depressed parents:
An integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 5076.
Foster, C. E., Webster, M. C., Weissman, M. M., Pilowsky, D. J.,
Wickramaratne, P. J., Rush, A., et al. (2008). Course and severity
of maternal depression: Associations with family functioning
and child adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37,
906916.
Friedmann, M. S., McDermut, W. H., Solomon, D. A., Ryan, C. E.,
Keitner, G. I., & Miller, I. W. (1997). Family functioning and
mental illness: A comparison of psychiatric and nonclinical
families. Family Process, 36, 357367.
GGD-Nederland. (2006). Handleiding voor het gebruik van de SDQ
binnen de jeugdgezondheidszorg (Manual for using the SDQ
within youth-healthcare).
GGZ-Nederland. (2010). Het GGZ werkveld (The workeld of mental
health centers), from http://www.ggznederland.nl/index.php?
p=136685.
Goodman, R. (1997). The Strengths and Difculties Questionnaire: A
research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38,
581586.
Goodman, S. H., & Gotlib, I. H. (1999). Risk for psychopathology in
the children of depressed mothers: A developmental model for
understanding mechanisms of transmission. Psychology Review,
106, 458490.
Goossens, F., & Van der Zanden, R. (2012). Factsheet KOPP/KVO
(Prevention factsheet: Children of mentally ill or addicted
parents). Utrecht: Trimbos-instituut.
Hammen, C., & Brennan, P. A. (2003). Severity, chronicity, and
timing of maternal depression and risk for adolescent offspring
diagnoses in a community sample. Archives of General Psychi-
atry, 60, 253258.
Harter, S. (1985). Manual for the self-perception prole for children.
Denver: University of Denver.
Hinshaw, S. P. (2004). Parental mental disorder and childrens
functioning: Silence and communication, stigma and resilience.
Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33,
400411.
Hosman, C. M., Van Doesum, K. T., & Van Santvoort, F. (2009).
Prevention of emotional problems and psychiatric risks in
children of parents with a mental illness in the Netherlands:
I. Scientic basis of a comprehensive approach. Advances in
Mental Health, 8, 250263.
Hussong, A. M., Zucker, R. A., Wong, M. M., Fitzgerald, H. E., &
Puttler, L. I. (2005). Social competence in children of alcoholic
parents over time. Developmental Psychology, 41, 747759.
Kessler, R. C., Berglund, P. A., Bruce, M. L., Koch, J. R., Laska,
E. M., Leaf, P. J., et al. (2001). The prevalence and correlates of
untreated serious mental illness. Health Services Research, 36,
9871007.
Koot, H. M. (1997). Handleiding bij de Vragenlijst voor Gezinspro-
blemen (Questionnaire for Family problems, manual). Rotterdam:
Sophia Kinderziekenhuis, afdeling Kinder- en jeugdpsychiatrie.
Lange, A. (2001). De Ouder-Kind Interactie Vragenlijst-Revised,
OKIV-R. Verantwoording en handleiding (The Parent-Child
Interaction Questionnaire. Justication and manual). Houten:
Bohn Staeu Van Loghum.
Leverton, T. J. (2003). Parental psychiatric illness: The implications
for children. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 16, 395402.
Maybery, D., Reupert, A., Patrick, K., Goodyear, M., & Crase, L.
(2009). Prevalence of parental mental illness in Australian
families. Psychiatric Bulletin, 33, 2226.
Newman, L. K., Stevenson, C. S., Bergman, L. R., & Boyce, P.
(2007). Borderline personality disorder, mother-infant interac-
tion and parenting perceptions: preliminary ndings. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41, 598605.
Olfson, M., Marcus, S. C., Druss, B., Pincus, H. A., & Weissman, M.
M. (2003). Parental depression, child mental health problems,
and health care utilization. Medical Care, 41, 716721.
Reupert, A., Cuff, R., Drost, L., Foster, K., Van Doesum, K. T., & van
Santvoort, F. (2012). Intervention programs for children whose
parents have a mental illness: a review. Medical Journal of
Australia (MJA Open), 1(Suppl 1), 1822.
Riosa, P. B., McArthur, B. A., & Preyde, M. (2011). Effectiveness of
psychosocial intervention for children and adolescents with
comorbid problems: A systematic review. Child and Adolescent
Mental Health, 16, 177185.
Rutter, M., & Quinton, D. (1984). Parental psychiatric disorder:
Effects on children. Psychological Medicine, 14, 853880.
Schenkel, L. S., West, A. E., Harral, E. M., Patel, N. B., & Pavuluri,
M. N. (2008). Parent-child interactions in pediatric bipolar
disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 64, 422437.
Schreier, A., Wittchen, H.-U., Hoer, M., & Lieb, R. (2008). Anxiety
disorders in mothers and their children: Prospective longitudinal
community study. British Journal of Psychiatry, 192, 308309.
Singh, M. K., DelBello, M. P., Stanford, K. E., Soutullo, C.,
McDonough-Ryan, P., McElroy, S. L., et al. (2007). Psychopa-
thology in children of bipolar parents. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 102, 131136.
Turner, S. M., Beidel, D. C., & Costello, A. (1987). Psychopathology
in the offspring of anxiety disorders patients. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 229235.
Van Doesum, K. T., & Hosman, C. M. (2009). Prevention of
emotional problems and psychiatric risks in children of parents
with a mental illness in the Netherlands: II. Interventions.
Advances in Mental Health, 8, 264276.
Veerman, J. W., Straathof, M. A. E., Treffers, P. D. A., Van den
Bergh, B. R. H., & Ten Brink, L. T. (1997). Competentiebele-
vingsschaal voor kinderen (CBSK): Handleiding (The perceived
competence scale for children: Manual). Lisse: Swets en
Zeitlinger.
Vermulst, A. A., & Gerris, J. R. M. (2009). Quick Big Five
persoonlijkheidstest handleiding (Quick Big Five personality-
test manual). s-Hertogenbosch: Malmberg.
Weissman, M. M., Fendrich, M., Warner, V., & Wickramaratne, P.
(1992). Incidence of psychiatric disorder in offspring at high and
low risk for depression. Journal of the American Academy of
Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 640648.
Weissman, M. M., Wickramaratne, P., Nomura, Y., Warner, V.,
Pilowsky, D., & Verdeli, H. (2006). Offspring of depressed
parents: 20 years later. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163,
10011008.
Zimmerman, M. A., Copeland, L. A., Shope, J. T., & Dielman, T.
(1997). A longitudinal study of self-esteem: Implications for
adolescent development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26,
117141.
Zimmerman, M., McGlinchey, J., Chelminski, I., & Young, D.
(2008). Diagnostic co-morbidity in 2,300 psychiatric out-patients
presenting for treatment evaluated with a semi-structured
diagnostic interview. Psychological Medicine, 38, 199210.
J Child Fam Stud (2014) 23:6775 75
1 3