ArticleChild: care, health and development2026
Perceived Relational Harm Across Children's Disability Constellations in Parent-Professional Interactions.
Article in Child: care, health and development, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundParents of children with disabilities frequently interact with professionals across healthcare, educational and social service systems and often describe these interactions as dismissive, blaming or controlling.
methodThis mixed-methods study examined the prevalence, accumulation, social patterning and qualitative manifestations of relational harm in these encounters using data from a nationwide survey of 645 parents in Germany. Quantitative analyses assessed four indicators of relational harm: not being taken seriously, ability negation of parental judgement, blame attribution and autonomy constraint through professional override.
resultsRelational harm was widespread (86.8% reported at least one form) and often cumulative. The most frequently reported experience was not being taken seriously (79.5%), followed by autonomy constraints (66.2%) and ability negation (59.4%), whereas blame attribution was reported by 44.3% of parents. Experiences of relational harm were also socially patterned. Parents of children with psychosocial disabilities reported substantially higher rates and combinations of harm experiences, with more than half reporting all four forms. Logistic regression analyses confirmed these patterns, showing elevated odds of relational harm for this group and for families with higher support intensity. Qualitative analyses identified three recurring domains of relational harm: epistemic marginalization of parental perspectives (41.8%), normative evaluation and attribution of responsibility to parents (29.8%) and autonomy-related constraints in interactions with professionals (28.4%). Across these domains, parents described experiences ranging from non-consideration of parental perspectives to discreditation of parents as knowers, from normative evaluation of parental behaviour to accusations of constructing the child's disability and from prescriptive guidance to coercive enforcement of professional decisions.
conclusionThese findings highlight relational quality as a central component of professional practice in support systems serving families of children with disabilities, as experiences of relational harm may undermine trust in professionals, engagement with services and parental well-being, with potential consequences for children's support and well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.