Skip to main content
Download PDF

Effects of micro- and macro-stressors and resilience factors on the mental health of parents caring for chronically ill and disabled children and adolescents

BMC Nursing volume 24, Article number: 489 (2025) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

This study examines the impact of non-care-related stressors and resilience factors on the mental health of caregivers for chronically ill and disabled children. It aims to identify the daily stressors and protective factors most relevant to caregiver well-being.

Methods

A total of 202 caregivers (predominantly female, aged 25–59) participated in a survey measuring exposure to daily micro-stressors, such as household tasks and financial pressures, and macro-stressors, such as significant life events. Resilience factors, including social support and internal locus of control, were also assessed. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses explored the relationship between stressors, resilience factors, and psychological distress.

Results

Micro-stressors were strongly associated with higher levels of psychological distress, underscoring the cumulative burden of frequent, daily stressors. In contrast, macro-stressors had no significant impact on distress, possibly due to their lower frequency or differences in perception. Resilience factors, particularly social support and internal locus of control, buffered against distress, demonstrating their protective role. Internal locus of control moderated the relationship between micro-stressors and distress, indicating that caregivers who felt greater personal control over their circumstances were better able to manage the negative effects of daily stressors.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the significant toll of daily micro-stressors on caregivers’ mental health and emphasize the important role of resilience factors in mitigating this burden. Strengthening caregivers’ social networks and fostering internal control beliefs could be key components of interventions designed to improve their well-being. These results suggest that supporting caregivers is essential not only to enhance their quality of life but also to sustain their caregiving roles. Further research should investigate the long-term effects of interventions targeting resilience and explore additional protective factors that may buffer against daily stressors in this vulnerable population. These findings have important implications for disability and rehabilitation services aiming to provide holistic caregiver support.

Trial registration

DRKS00027465, 2022-01-04 (German Clinical Trials Register); NCT05418205, 2022-03-01 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Chronically ill and disabled children are individuals who experience ongoing health conditions that require continuous case management and intervention [1], usually because they have at least one of the following functional impairments: need for medication, medical attention, and/or modified schooling [2]. Most of these children are cared for by their parents at home [3]. These parents often face unique challenges and significant stress related to their caregiver role [3, 4]. These challenges include financial, emotional and physical burdens [5], increasing the risk of health, social and economic problems, often leading to poorer living conditions and care situations [6]. In addition to stressors related to their caregiver role, these parents are exposed to similar stressors as parents of children without disabilities such as household responsibilities, balancing work and family life, and navigating everyday challenges like transportation and childcare [7,8,9]. In contrast to parents of children living without disabilities, little is known about the stressors relevant for parents of children with chronic health conditions.

Stressors represent stimuli or situations that elicits stress responses [10]. A common way to quantify stressors is to distinguish between micro- and macro-stressors [11]. Micro-stressors are daily hassles, that is, small everyday stressors that individuals experience frequently such as time pressure at work or missing a bus [12]. These stressors are often minor annoyances, irritations, or challenges that can accumulate over time and contribute to overall stress levels [13]. They can have profound negative effects on mental health and well-being, especially when they are numerous and persistent [14, 15].

Macro-stressors, on the other hand, are larger, more significant sources of stress that have a broader impact on an individual’s life [12]. These stressors typically result from major life events, transitions, or persistent difficult circumstances. Examples of macro-stressors include divorce, job loss, major financial problems, chronic illness, major accidents, and natural disasters. Unlike micro-stressors, macro-stressors tend to have a more immediate and serious effect on an individual’s stress levels and may require more coping behavior to be managed successfully [16].

Parents of chronically ill and disabled children are exposed to a variety of stressors. Reviews showed that these parents are exposed to greater parenting stress than parents of children without major health challenges [17,18,19]. Increased parenting stress may result from heightened parental accountability in managing treatments and was found to be influenced by the duration and severity of children’s illnesses [17]. Moreover, parents of chronically ill and disabled children and adolescents also need to invest more in coping strategies to manage increased stressor exposure [20].

Few studies in this field have addressed stressors unrelated to the child’s illness. Many parents report that the stress of caring for their child leaves them unable to cope with everyday difficulties [21]. They often feel overwhelmed, exhausted, and stressed [22]. Increased stress associated with caring can spill over to other areas of life [23], because the demands of caregiving consume resources that would otherwise be used to fulfil other social roles [24]. For example, the work-life balance of caregivers tends to be imbalanced [25]. Kish et al. [26] reviewed stressors affecting parents of children with chronic illness, identifying three main sources of stress: workplace, family/child, and personal challenges. Workplace-related stress stemmed largely from inflexibility, while family-related stress involved finding suitable childcare, time constraints, and the pressure to support both the disabled child and the family. Personal challenges included a lack of optimism and uncertain perspectives of the future. Together, these stressors contributed to a reduced quality of life for parents of chronically ill children and adolescents.

When people maintain or quickly recover their mental health in face of such stressors, they respond resiliently to those stressors [27, 28]. A growing body of research has demonstrated a positive association between resilience factors and resilient outcomes (i.e., low levels of mental distress or high levels of well-being) in the general population [29]. This association is also found in parents of chronically ill children [30]. Research shows that certain resilience factors (such as social support and optimism) help people to cope with stressful life events and mitigate risk factors [31,32,33].

Aims and objective

This study aimed to (1) identify the stressors faced by parents of chronically ill and disabled children and adolescents, encompassing both micro- and macro-stressors; (2) investigate the differential influence of micro- and macro-stressors on mental health outcomes in those parents; and (3) identify potential resilience factors that may have the potential to alleviate the impact of stressors on mental health.

Method

Study design and sample recruitment

The data used in this study were collected as part of the NEST research project [34] in Germany in February and March 2022. The NEST project aims to evaluate a case management intervention for families with chronically ill and disabled children and adolescents. While the overall project follows a longitudinal design, the present analysis is based solely on baseline data, making it a cross-sectional study. Participants completed the baseline survey via the online platform SoSci Survey [35], which facilitated data collection. Participants engaged in the study through the online platform SoSci Survey [35], which facilitates data collection.

A total of 202 participants were recruited from two established German support networks for parents of children in need of care, nestwärme e. V. and Kindernetzwerk e. V. The sample size planning for the NEST project was based on the planned intervention; however, no separate sample size planning was conducted for the specific analyses presented in this paper. To be eligible for inclusion in the study, participants had to meet two inclusion criteria: (1) to be a parent of a child with a disability and/or chronic disease according to the criteria of the German Social Code (receipt of benefits according to § 37 SGB V and/or care level > 1), and (2) to be at least 18 years old. For a comprehensive description of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, see Nickel et al. [34]. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (application number: LPEK-0370). All subjects gave informed consent in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and its latest revisions. While the project itself was prospectively registered on the German Clinical Trials Register (ID: DRKS00027465) as well as on ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT05418205), the specific analyses performed in this study were not part of the registration.

Materials

The online survey included the following sections: sociodemographic data, access to and use of utilities, mental health, resilience and resilience-related constructs, stressor exposure (see Nickel et al., 2023, for details). All instruments used in this study were previously validated and published. No new instruments were developed specifically for this study. Below, we provide a description of the validated tools used in the analysis. In this paper, we focus on the following outcomes and risk/resilience factors; other results will be published elsewhere.

Mainz Inventory of Microstressors (MIMIS)

Micro-stressors were assessed using the MIMIS [36]. The MIMIS provides a retrospective assessment of micro-stressors over a one-week period. The questionnaire consists of 58 items that assess micro-stressor load over the past seven days. It separates stressor occurrence from perceived stressor severity. The occurrence of stressors is measured on an 8-point scale (0–7; 0 = did not occur, 7 = occurred on seven days). For each participant, a total stressor score was calculated by summing the frequency of all reported stressors, resulting in an overall measure of stressor. This total score ranged from 0 to 406. The perceived severity of the stressor is rated on a four-point scale (0–4; 0 = not at all severe, 4 = extremely severe). A total severity score was calculated by summing the severity ratings for all reported stressors. This total severity score ranged from 0 to 232. In the current study, the internal consistency was good, ω = 0.89, 95% CI [0.88; 0.93].

Life Events (LE)

Macro-stressors were assessed using the checklist for life events developed by Canli et al. [37] which contains 27 events. Respondents are asked to indicate whether a particular event occurred within a specified period, in our case, the last 6 months. For each participant, an overall score was calculated based on the total number of events experienced during this period. Since the number of potential events was not fixed, the overall score was theoretically open-ended, depending entirely on how many stressors were reported. Respondents were then asked to indicate on a 5-point scale how severe the respective event was (1–5; 1 = not at all severe, 5 = extremely severe). An overall severity score was calculated by summing the severity ratings for all events that occurred. This overall score was dependent on the total number of events experienced, and because the number of potential events was not fixed, the score was also theoretically open-ended. In the current study, internal consistency was acceptable, ω = 0.70, 95% CI [0.68; 0.72].

General Health Questionnaire-28 (GHQ-28)

Mental distress was measured using the 28-item version of the General Health Questionnaire [38]. The GHQ-28 assesses somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, and severe depression with 28 items on a 3-point scale (0–3; 0 = better than usual, 3 = much worse than usual). Higher scores indicate more severe mental distress. In the present study, internal consistency was excellent, ω = 0.93, 95% CI [0.91; 0.94].

Perceived Stress Scale 4 (PSS-4)

Perceived stress was measured using the PSS-4 [39], with 4 items on a 5-point scale (0–4; 0 = never, 4 = very often). Higher scores indicate more severe subjectively perceived stress. In the current study, internal consistency was acceptable, ω = 0.77, 95% CI [0.71; 0.82].

Optimism Pessimism Scale 2 (SOP-2)

Parents’ dispositional optimism and pessimism was measured using the SOP-2 [40]. The two items are rated on a 7-point scale (1–7; 1 = not at all optimistic/pessimistic, 7 = very optimistic/pessimistic). Higher scores indicate more dispositional optimism. Internal consistency was good in our sample, ω = 0.89, 95% CI [0.85; 0.93].

General Self-Efficacy short scale-3 (GSE–3)

Parents’ perceived self-efficacy beliefs were measured using the GSE–3 [41]. Three items are rated on a 5-point scale (1–5; 1 = does not apply at all, 5 = applies completely). Higher scores indicate stronger self-efficacy beliefs. In our sample, the internal consistency of the measure was good, ω = 0.84, 95% CI [0.83; 0.85].

Oslo Social Support Scale (OSSS-3)

Perceived social support was measured using the OSSS-3 [42], which consists of 3 items that are rated on a 4-5-point scale (Item 1: 1 = none, 5 = more than 5; Item 2: 1 = none, 5 = a lot, and for Item 3: 1 = very difficult, 5 = very easy). Higher scores indicate greater perceived social support. In the current study, the internal consistency was acceptable, ω = 0.65, 95% CI [0.57; 0.73].

Internal-External locus of control short scale–4 (IE-4)

Internal locus of control was measured using the internal locus of control subscale of the Internal-External Locus of Control Short Scale-4 [43], with two items rated on a 5-point scale (1–5; 1 = does not apply at all, 5 = applies completely). Higher scores indicate greater internal locus of control. In the current study, the internal consistency was acceptable, ω = 0.70, 95% CI [0.59; 0.78].

Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA)

We used the family cohesion subscale of the Resilience Scale for Adults [44] to measure family cohesion. This subscale, which can also be used as a stand-alone scale, consists of 6 items, rated on a 6-point scale (1–6), with varying item-specific anchors. Higher scores indicate greater family cohesion. In the current study, the internal consistency was acceptable, ω = 0.74, 95% CI [0.60; 0.80].

Data analyses

Analyses were conducted using R version 4.3.2 [45] and the packages easystats [46], and tidyverse [47].

Descriptive analyses, including means, standard deviations, and frequencies, were used to characterize the sample demographics and caregiving context. Additionally, descriptive statistics were employed to explore the prevalence and perceived severity of both common and most severe micro- (daily hassles)- and macro-stressors (life events). Furthermore, heat maps illustrating the frequency and severity of micro-stressors were generated, providing a visual representation of patterns through varying color intensities.

To better understand the relationship between stress and mental health, we employed linear regression models. Each model examined different aspects of stressors, resilience factors, and mental health outcomes. With respect to those models, we use the term predictor for independent variables in regression analyses, which does not necessarily imply a causal relationship. For regression analyses, we used linear models adjusted for age, gender, education, care level and income, which were included as control variables to account for potential confounding effects. Age and income were treated as continuous variables, while gender, care level and education were coded as categorical variables. The models were structured as follows:

  • Model 1: The outcome was mental distress, with the sum of micro-and macro-stressors as predictors.

  • Model 2: The outcome was mental distress, predictors included severity of micro- and macro-stressors.

  • Model 3: We examined the interaction between mental distress, sum of micro- and macro-stressors, and resilience factors. The resilience factors self-efficacy, social support, optimism, internal locus of control, and family cohesion served as moderators of the relationship between stressor exposure and mental distress in this analysis.

The original power analysis was based on a multilevel model to account for potential regional variation in caregiver experiences. Assuming 5% intra-cluster variance and using a variance inflation factor [48], the required sample size was estimated at 73 participants per group. Accounting for 20–40% expected attrition [49] the target sample size was set at N = 202. For the present analysis, only baseline data were used. Post hoc power analyses were conducted for the three multiple regression models using observed effect sizes: Cohen’s f2 [50]. Model 1 (f2 = 0.23, df = 174) showed a power of 0.98; model 2 (f2 = 0.28, df = 180) a power of 0.99; and model 3 (f2 = 0.72, df = 159) a power of 0.97. All models had sufficient power (> 0.80) to detect the observed effects.

Results

Sample characteristics

The sample consisted of 202 caregivers (see Table 1 for sociodemographic characteristics with a mean age of 42 years (SD = 6.75), ranging from 25 to 59 years. The majority of the parents were female (93%), with only 7% being male. In terms of marital status, 77% were in a relationship, while 23% were either single or divorced. Regarding educational background, 36% held a university degree, 29% completed high school, 22% had a medium secondary education, and 6% completed low secondary education, with only 0.52% having no school-leaving qualification.

Table 1 Descriptive characteristics of parents and children in the sample (N = 202)
Full size table

The children in the sample had a mean age of 8 years (SD = 4.35), with a median age of 7, ranging from 1 to 17 years. Slightly more children were male (55%) than female (45%). Germany has a system for assessing the severity of illnesses through care levels (“Pflegegrade”), which categorize an individual’s need for care and determine their access to support services and financial assistance [51]. Care levels range from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest), with level 1 representing a mild need for care and level 5 indicating severe dependence on assistance for daily activities. The care levels of the children in our sample varied, with the majority having a care level of 3 (31%) or 4 (29%), while smaller proportions were classified as level 5 (23%), level 2 (13%), and level 1 (4%). The children in the sample had a wide range of chronic illnesses and disabilities, including genetic syndromes (e.g., Down syndrome, Rett syndrome, Prader-Willi syndrome, Costello syndrome), neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, developmental delays), metabolic and muscular diseases (e.g., mitochondrial disorders, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, glycogen storage disease), and severe congenital conditions (e.g., spina bifida, heart defects, epilepsy). Many children experienced co-occurring conditions, such as intellectual disabilities, motor impairments, and feeding or sensory difficulties.

Stressor load

We analyzed both micro- and macro-stressors, focusing on their frequency and severity. The most common micro-stressor was household chores, reported by 95% of participants, followed by lack of sleep (89.6%), interruptions of activities (86%), negative events in the media (86%), and negative political events (85%). Regarding severity, money problems (mean severity rating of 3.92, experienced by 27.72% of participants), lack of support (3.90, 66.34%), time pressure (3.89, 24.75%), and lack of sleep (3.87, 89.60%) were identified as the most burdensome micro-stressors. The most prevalent macro-stressor was serious illness or accident of close relative (96%), followed by selling or moving house (67%), death of a close relative (59%), wedding plans (54%) and child’s first day at school (50%). The most burdensome macro-stressors were victim of physical abuse (mean severity rating of 5.00, experienced by 0.50% of participants), death of a beloved pet (4.50, 0.99%), separation of parents (4.33, 1.49%), pregnancy complications or miscarriage (4.33, 0.99%), and serious illness or accident (4.31, 0.50%).

Table 2 presents the total values of micro and macro stressors (sum and severity scale).

Table 2 Mean and standard deviation of micro- and macro-stressors in intervention and control groups
Full size table

For a clear presentation of the micro-stressors, Figs. 1 and 2 display heat maps representing the frequency (count) and severity (mean value) of these stressors. The frequency heat map illustrates how often each stressor occurred among participants, while the severity heat map highlights the average perceived intensity of each stressor. These visualizations help identify patterns of stressor exposure, highlighting which types of daily challenges were most commonly experienced and perceived as most intense.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Heat map of frequency of micro-stressors

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Heat map of severity of micro-stressors

Full size image

Stressor load and mental health

The results of regression model 1 are presented in Table 3.

Table 3 Regression analysis of the impact of sum of micro- and macro-stressors, demographic factors, and income on mental distress
Full size table

The results showed that the frequency of micro-stressors was significantly positively associated with mental distress (p < 0.001). Individuals with higher micro-stress exposure tended to have higher psychological distress. In contrast, the frequency of macro-stressors was not significantly associated with mental distress (p = 0.149). The model explained approximately 18% of the variance in mental distress (R2 = 0.181; adjusted R2 = 0.134).

The results of regression model 2 are presented in Table 4.

Table 4 Regression analysis of the impact of the severity of micro- and macro-stressors, demographic factors, and income on mental distress
Full size table

The results showed that the perceived severity of micro-stressors was significantly positively associated with mental distress (p < 0.001), indicating that individuals who perceived micro-stressors as more severe experienced higher levels of mental distress. By contrast, the perceived severity of macro-stressors was not significantly associated with mental distress (p = 0.435). The model accounted for approximately 22% of the variance in mental distress (R2 = 0.223; adjusted R2 = 0.171).

Resilience factors

Our next aim was to examine the moderator effect of resilience factors on the relationship between stressor exposure (including micro- and macro-stressors) and mental distress. The results of the regression analysis (model 3) are presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Regression analysis for the association between sum of micro- and macro-stressors, resilience factors, and mental distress
Full size table

The regression analysis revealed significant relationships between certain resilience factors, stressor interactions, and psychological distress. Micro-stressors alone were not significantly associated with psychological distress (p = 0.572). However, resilience factors played a critical role: internal locus of control (p = 0.001) and social support (p = 0.005) were significantly associated with reduced psychological distress.

Interaction effects showed that internal locus of control moderated the relationship between micro-stressors and distress, buffering against their negative impact (p = 0.014). Similarly, social support interacted with micro-stressors to reduce their influence on distress (p = 0.039). Macro-stressors and their interactions with resilience factors did not significantly predict distress (p > 0.05).

Discussion

The current study offered a more profound understanding of micro- and macro-level stressors and their correlation with mental health, along with identifying protective factors within a sample of parents caring for chronically ill and disabled children.

The analysis of micro- and macro-stressors among parents of chronically ill children revealed a range of common and severe stressors. Household chores, lack of sleep, and financial issues were the most frequently reported micro-stressors, with money problems and lack of support being rated as the most severe. In terms of macro-stressors, serious illness or accidents and moving house were most frequently encountered, while rather low frequent events like physical abuse and the death of a pet were perceived as the most burdensome. Given the predominance of women in our sample, this finding aligns with previous research on gender inequalities in domestic work [52]. The findings underscore the significant double burden faced by parents of chronically ill children, as they navigate both the demands of caregiving and the strain of everyday stressors. This dual challenge is particularly troubling because micro-stressors like lack of sleep and financial difficulties are frequent and on-going. Understanding this double burden is critical when designing support systems for parents. It highlights the need for interventions that target both aspects of their stress. On one level, support must be provided for managing the acute crises related to their child’s illness (e.g., medical emergencies, treatment management). At the same time, efforts must also be made to alleviate the constant pressure of everyday life. For instance, providing financial aid, respite care, or support with household tasks could significantly reduce the weight of micro-stressors, allowing parents more time and energy to focus on their child’s care without feeling overwhelmed by the necessities of daily life. Additionally, mental health interventions should consider how chronic stress from micro-stressors might accumulate and intensify parents’ vulnerability [53, 54].

Our regression analyses showed that both the number and perceived severity of stressors were significantly linked to psychological distress. However, micro-stressors had a greater influence on distress levels than macro-stressors, reinforcing that daily, minor stressors can have a substantial impact on mental health [26]. Individuals experiencing a higher number of micro-stressors or perceiving them as more severe reported increased psychological distress. Although macro-stressors were also associated with distress, their impact was less pronounced. These models explained a substantial portion of the variance in mental health outcomes, highlighting the significant role daily micro-stressors play in overall well-being. This finding is consistent with other studies which have also found that exposure to micro-stressors can contribute significantly to the deterioration of short term and ultimately long term affective well-being [55,56,57]. and even exceeded the relevance of macro-stressors like major life events [56, 58,59,60].

Our study aimed to elucidate the role of protective factors, specifically resilience factors, in mitigating the impact of stressors on caregiver psychological distress. Our analysis also confirmed that resilience factors can have a protective effect against psychological distress for caregivers [30, 61]. Notably, social support and family cohesion emerged as important protective factors, which is in line with previous studies [18, 62, 63]. Additionally, the significant interaction between micro-stressors and internal control suggests that individuals with a greater sense of internal control may be better equipped to cope with increasing micro-stressors, thereby mitigating their negative effects. These findings highlight the importance of enhancing internal control and strengthening social support networks to buffer against the adverse effects of daily stressors [18, 62, 63]. In contrast, macro-stressors and other variables, such as age, gender, education, and income, did not show significant associations, suggesting that the cumulative burden of micro-stressors may play a more crucial role in influencing mental distress than these broader factors.

Strengths and limitations

This study provided a comprehensive evaluation of micro- and macro-stressors, offering a detailed understanding of the stressors impacting caregivers of chronically ill children. By examining resilience factors such as social support, optimism, internal locus of control, and family cohesion, the study contributed to a deeper understanding of protective mechanisms against psychological distress.

However, our study must be interpreted in the light of its limitations. First, our sample is not representative for the population of parents with children in need of care in Germany. The sample of the current study was recruited via specific support organizations. While this approach allowed us to access a population of interest, it is essential to acknowledge the potential presence of selection bias within our sample. It is plausible that families in our sample have higher levels of awareness and access to available support services and experience more social support [64, 65]. Second, reliance on self-reported data introduced potential biases affecting the accuracy of reported stress and distress levels. Additionally, other relevant variables influencing the stress-distress relationship, such as cultural differences and individual coping strategies, were not accounted for in this study. Third, the gender distribution in our sample was highly imbalanced, with 93% of participants identifying as women. This overrepresentation of mothers is common in caregiving research, as women continue to take on the majority of care responsibilities in families [66]. Although our research focuses on parents, this skewed distribution limits the representativeness of the findings, particularly with regard to fathers and caregivers self-identifying as men. Consequently, interpretations of stress exposure and resilience may be more reflective of maternal experiences, which should be taken into account when generalizing the results to the broader population of parents.

Conclusion

This study provides a deeper understanding of the impact of micro- and macro-stressors on the mental health of parents caring for chronically ill and disabled children, emphasizing the critical role of daily stressors. Macro-stressors, such as serious illness in family members, also contribute to distress, though their impact is less pronounced compared to micro-stressors.

The results may be of relevance for the development of targeted interventions that address both caregiving demands and everyday micro-stressors to improve overall well-being. Moreover, the study highlights the protective effects of resilience factors, with social support, family cohesion, and a strong sense of internal control emerging as crucial buffers against daily stressors. This suggests that promoting resilience and strengthening support networks may be more effective in enhancing caregiver mental health than merely reducing stressors. This, however, has to be proved in further studies.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Stanton AL, Revenson TA, Tennen H. Health psychology: psychological adjustment to chronic disease. Annu Rev Psychol. 2007;58(1):565–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Perrin JM, Bloom SR, Gortmaker SL. The increase of childhood chronic conditions in the united States. JAMA. 2007;297(24):2755–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Page BF, Hinton L, Harrop E, Vincent C. The challenges of caring for children who require complex medical care at home: ‘the go between for everyone is the parent and as the parent that’s an awful lot of responsibility’. Health Expect. 2020;23(5):1144–54.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Majnemer A, Shevell M, Law M, Poulin C, Rosenbaum P. Indicators of distress in families of children with cerebral palsy. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(14):1202–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Nageswaran S, Golden SL. Improving the quality of home health care for children with medical complexity. Acad Pediatr. 2017;17(6):665–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Boyden JY, Hill DL, LaRagione G, Wolfe J, Feudtner C. Home-based care for children with serious illness: ecological framework and research implications. Children. 2022;9(8):1115.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Crnic K, Low C. Everyday stresses and parenting. Handbook of parenting: practical issues in parenting. Volume 5, 2nd ed. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2002. pp. 243–67.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Mikolajczak M, Gross JJ, Roskam I. Parental burnout: what is it, and why does it matter? Clin Psychol Sci. 2019;7(6):1319–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Nomaguchi K, Milkie MA. Parenthood and well-being: a decade in review. J Marriage Fam. 2020;82(1):198–223.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Schneiderman N, Ironson G, Siegel SD. Stress and health: psychological, behavioral, and biological determinants. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2005;1:607–28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Kanner AD, Coyne JC, Schaefer C, Lazarus RS. Comparison of two modes of stress measurement: daily hassles and uplifts versus major life events. J Behav Med. 1981;4(1):1–39.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wheaton B. The nature of stressors. A handbook for the study of mental health: social contexts, theories, and systems. New York, NY, US: Cambridge University Press; 1999. pp. 176–97.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hahn SE, Smith CS. Daily hassles and chronic stressors: conceptual and measurement issues. Stress Med. 1999;15(2):89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hubenschmid L, Helmreich I, Köber G, Gilan D, Frenzel SB, van Dick R, et al. Effects of general and corona-specific stressors on mental burden during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Germany. Front Public Health. 2022;10.

  15. Serido J, Almeida DM, Wethington E. Chronic stressors and daily hassles: unique and interactive relationships with psychological distress. J Health Soc Behav. 2004;45(1):17–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Norris FH, Elrod CL. Psychosocial consequences of disaster: a review of past research. In: Norris FH, Galea S, Friedman MJ, Watson PJ, editors. Methods for disaster mental health research. New York, NY: Guildford; 2006. pp. 20–44.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Cousino MK, Hazen RA. Parenting stress among caregivers of children with chronic illness: a systematic review. J Pediatr Psychol. 2013;38(8):809–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Peer JW, Hillman SB. Stress and resilience for parents of children with intellectual and developmental disabilities: A review of key factors and recommendations for practitioners. J Policy Pract Intellect Disabil. 2014;11(2):92–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Pinquart M. Parenting stress in caregivers of children with chronic physical condition—A meta-analysis. Stress Health. 2018;34(2):197–207.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fairfax A, Brehaut J, Colman I, Sikora L, Kazakova A, Chakraborty P, et al. A systematic review of the association between coping strategies and quality of life among caregivers of children with chronic illness and/or disability. BMC Pediatr. 2019;19(1):215.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Kish AM, Haslam DM, Newcombe PA. Child chronic illness and parent work-family conflict: investigating the experiences of working parents. J Child Fam Stud. 2020;29(5):1312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vickers MH, Parris MA. Towards ending the silence: working women caring for children with chronic illness. Empl Responsib Rights J. 2005;17(2):91–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Aneshensel CS, Pearlin LI, Mullan JT, Zarit SH, Whitlatch CJ. Profiles in caregiving: the unexpected career. Elsevier; 1995. p. 406.

  24. Batchelor LL, Duke G. Chronic sorrow in parents with chronically ill children. Pediatr Nurs. 2019;45(4):163–73.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stewart LM. Family care responsibilities and employment: exploring the impact of type of family care on work–family and family–work conflict. J Fam Issues. 2013;34(1):113–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kish AM, Newcombe PA, Haslam DM. Working and caring for a child with chronic illness: A review of current literature. Child Care Health Dev. 2018;44(3):343–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bonanno GA. The resilience paradox. Eur J Psychotraumatology. 2021;12(1):1942642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kalisch R, Müller MB, Tüscher O. A conceptual framework for the neurobiological study of resilience. Behav Brain Sci. 2015;38:e92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Liu JJW, Ein N, Gervasio J, Battaion M, Reed M, Vickers K. Comprehensive meta-analysis of resilience interventions. Clin Psychol Rev. 2020;82:101919.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Iacob CI, Avram E, Cojocaru D, Podina IR. Resilience in familial caregivers of children with developmental disabilities: a meta-analysis. J Autism Dev Disord. 2020;50(11):4053–68.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Iflaifel M, Lim RH, Ryan K, Crowley C. Resilient health care: a systematic review of conceptualisations, study methods and factors that develop resilience. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20(1):324.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Schäfer SK, Kunzler AM, Kalisch R, Tüscher O, Lieb K. Trajectories of resilience and mental distress to global major disruptions. Trends Cogn Sci. 2022;26(12):1171–89.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Schäfer SK, Supke M, Kausmann C, Schaubruch LM, Lieb K, Cohrdes C. A systematic review of individual, social, and societal resilience factors in response to societal challenges and crises. Commun Psychol. 2024;2(1):1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Nickel S, Helmreich I, Broll J, Lüdecke D. Family health partners in regional network structures (NEST): A non-randomized controlled trial among parents of chronically ill and disabled children. PLoS ONE. 2023;18(7):e0288435.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Leiner DJ. SoSci Survey [Internet]. Version 3.4.19. 2023. Available from: https://www.soscisurvey.de

  36. Chmitorz A, Kurth K, Mey LK, Wenzel M, Lieb K, Tüscher O, et al. Assessment of microstressors in adults: questionnaire development and ecological validation of the Mainz inventory of microstressors. JMIR Ment Health. 2020;7(2):e14566.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Canli T, Qiu M, Omura K, Congdon E, Haas BW, Amin Z, et al. Neural correlates of epigenesis. Raichle ME, editor. PNAS Proc Natl Acad Sci U S Am. 2006;103(43):16033–8.

  38. Goldberg DP, Hillier VF. A scaled version of the general health questionnaire. Psychol Med. 1979;9(1):139–45.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Klein EM, Brähler E, Dreier M, Reinecke L, Müller KW, Schmutzer G, et al. The German version of the perceived stress Scale– psychometric characteristics in a representative German community sample. BMC Psychiatry. 2016;16(1):159.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Nießen D, Groskurth K, Kemper CJ, Rammstedt B, Lechner CM. Optimism–Pessimism Short Scale–2 (SOP2). ZIS - Collect Items Scales Soc Sci [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2025 Jan 3]. Available from: https://zis.gesis.org/DoiId/zis322_exz

  41. Doll ES, Nießen D, Schmidt I, Rammstedt B, Lechner CM. General Self-Efficacy Short Scale-3 (GSE-3). ZIS - Collect Items Scales Soc Sci [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2025 Jan 3]. Available from: https://zis.gesis.org/DoiId/zis294

  42. Kocalevent RD, Berg L, Beutel ME, Hinz A, Zenger M, Härter M, et al. Social support in the general population: standardization of the Oslo social support scale (OSSS-3). BMC Psychol. 2018;6(1):31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Nießen D, Schmidt I, Groskurth K, Rammstedt B, Lechner CM. Internal–External Locus of Control Short Scale–4 (IE-4). ZIS - Collect Items Scales Soc Sci [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2025 Jan 3]. Available from: https://zis.gesis.org/DoiId/zis323_exz

  44. Friborg O, Hjemdal O, Rosenvinge JH, Martinussen M. A new rating scale for adult resilience: what are the central protective resources behind healthy adjustment? Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2003;12(2):65–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna (Austria): R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2024. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/

  46. Lüdecke D, Ben-Shachar MS, Patil I, Wiernik BM, Bacher E, Thériault R, et al. easystats: Framework for easy statistical modeling, visualization, and reporting [Internet]. CRAN; 2022. Available from: https://easystats.github.io/easystats/

  47. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan LD, François R, et al. Welcome to the tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019;4(43):1686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Snijders TAB. Power and sample size in multilevel linear models. In: Everitt BS, Howell DC, editors. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioural Science [Internet]. Chicester: Wiley; 2005 [cited 2024 Oct 28]. pp. 1570–3. Available from: https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/power-and-sample-size-in-multilevel-linear-models

  49. Sansom-Daly U, Wakefield C, Bryant R, Butow P, Thomas D, Mok K, et al. A new way to support adolescents and young adults (AYAS) and their families beyond cancer treatment: protocol of a phase II cluster-randomised trial of ’recapture life: skills for survivorship. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol. 2010;6:247.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Glazinski B, Müller P, Obermann K, Winter CM, Zilch S, editors. The German healthcare system. 3rd ed. Heidelberg: medhochzwei; 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Vadivelan K, Sekar P, Sruthi SS, Gopichandran V. Burden of caregivers of children with cerebral palsy: an intersectional analysis of gender, poverty, stigma, and public policy. BMC Public Health. 2020;20(1):645.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  53. Charles ST, Piazza JR, Mogle J, Sliwinski MJ, Almeida DM. The wear and tear of daily stressors on mental health. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(5):733–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Ong AD, Leger KA. Advancing the study of resilience to daily stressors. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022;17(6):1591–603.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Mey LK, Chmitorz A, Kurth K, Wenzel M, Kalisch R, Tüscher O, et al. Increases of negative affect following daily hassles are not moderated by neuroticism: an ecological momentary assessment study. Stress Health. 2020;36(5):615–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Peralta-Ramírez MI, Jiménez-Alonso J, Godoy-García JF, Pérez-García M. Nieves the group LV de Las. The effects of daily stress and stressful life events on the clinical symptomatology of patients with lupus erythematosus. Psychosom Med. 2004;66(5):788.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Tessner KD, Mittal V, Walker EF. Longitudinal study of stressful life events and daily stressors among adolescents at high risk for psychotic disorders. Schizophr Bull. 2011;37(2):432–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. DeLongis A, Coyne JC, Dakof G, Folkman S, Lazarus RS. Relationship of daily hassles, uplifts, and major life events to health status. Health Psychol. 1982;1(2):119–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Fernandez E, Sheffield J. Relative contributions of life events versus daily hassles to the frequency and intensity of headaches. Headache J Head Face Pain. 1996;36(10):595–602.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Veer IM, Riepenhausen A, Zerban M, Wackerhagen C, Puhlmann LMC, Engen H, et al. Psycho-social factors associated with mental resilience in the Corona lockdown. Transl Psychiatry. 2021;11(1):1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Lou Y, Taylor EP, Di Folco S. Resilience and resilience factors in children in residential care: a systematic review. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2018;89:83–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Ekas NV, Lickenbrock DM, Whitman TL. Optimism, social support, and well-being in mothers of children with autism spectrum disorder. J Autism Dev Disord. 2010;40(10):1274–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Smith J, Cheater F, Bekker H. Parents’ experiences of living with a child with a long-term condition: a rapid structured review of the literature. Health Expect. 2015;18(4):452–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Kofahl C, Seidel G, Weber J, Werner S, Nickel S. Strukturen und prozesse bei Selbsthilfegruppen und -organisationen. In: Kofahl C, Schulz-Nieswandt F, Dierks ML, editors. Selbsthilfe und Selbsthilfeunterstützung in Deutschland. München: LIT-Verlag; 2016. pp. 83–112.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Sartore GM, Pourliakas A, Lagioia V. Peer support interventions for parents and carers of children with complex needs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;12(12):CD010618.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Spurr S, Danford CA, Roberts KJ, Sheppard-LeMoine D, Machado Silva-Rodrigues F, Darezzo Rodrigues Nunes M, et al. Fathers’ experiences of caring for a child with a chronic illness: a systematic review. Children. 2023;10(2):197.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

This work was supported by the Innovation Fund of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), Germany, under Grant number: 01VSF20004.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research (LIR), Wallstraße 7, D-55122, Mainz, Germany

    Jan Broll, Sarah K. Schäfer, Klaus Lieb & Isabella Helmreich

  2. Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy and Psychodiagnostics, Technical University of Braunschweig, D-38106, Braunschweig, Germany

    Sarah K. Schäfer

  3. Institute of Medical Sociology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, D-20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Daniel Lüdecke & Stefan Nickel

Authors
  1. Jan Broll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah K. Schäfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel Lüdecke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Nickel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. Klaus Lieb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  6. Isabella Helmreich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JB: Conceptualization of the study, study design, investigation, data analysis, and writing (original draft). SKS: Study design, supervision, writing (review and editing). DL: Conceptualization of the study and funding, data analysis, writing (review and editing). SN: Writing (review and editing). KL: Funding, supervision, writing (review and editing). IH: Conceptualization of the study and funding, writing (review and editing).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jan Broll.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research was performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Participants in the study were provided with information about the purpose of the study and assurances were given to them regarding the protection of their privacy and confidentiality. They were informed that the study is optional, and they possess the freedom to discontinue their involvement whenever they choose. Before participating in the study, they signed a consent form. The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (application number: LPEK-0370).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Broll, J., Schäfer, S.K., Lüdecke, D. et al. Effects of micro- and macro-stressors and resilience factors on the mental health of parents caring for chronically ill and disabled children and adolescents. BMC Nurs 24, 489 (2025). https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12912-025-03125-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doiorg.publicaciones.saludcastillayleon.es/10.1186/s12912-025-03125-6

Keywords

BMC Nursing

ISSN: 1472-6955

Contact us