A Comparative Study to Assess the Quality of Life among parents between Physically Disabled and Mentally Disabled Children of selected special schools, Mangaluru

Jyothi. H.¹, Sumitha Shwetha Periera.²

¹M.Sc. (N) Department of Mental Health Nursing, Masood College of Nursing, Mangaluru, Karnataka. India.

²Lecturer, Department of Mental Health Nursing, Masood College of Nursing, Mangaluru, Karnataka. India.

*Corresponding Author E-mail: jyomlr@gmail.com

ABSTRACT:

Every child born into the world is a new ray of possibility and hope. Children with sound body and mind are essential for the future development of the country. Children with sound body and mind are essential for the future development of the country. Many children around the globe are facing physical and and mental disabilities. The present study was aimed to assess the quality of life among parents of children with physical and mental disabilities, compare the quality of life among parents of children with physical and mental disabilities and also to find out the association between the quality of life among parents of physically disabled and mentally disabled with their selected demographic variables. A comparative descriptive research design was adopted for the study. The study was conducted at selected special schools Mangaluru. The sample was 100 parents of physically and mentally disabled children who met inclusion criteria. Purposive sampling technique was used to select the sample. Formal written permission from principals of the selected schools and informed consent from the parents were obtained prior to data collection process. Data was collected by administering Demographic proforma and WHOQOL BREF scale. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Ethical permission was obtained from the ethical committee before conducting the study. The result revealed that overall mean percentage of quality of life among parents of physically disabled children was 76.092 (98.92±2.68) which was much higher than mean percentage 56.292 (73.18±2.59) in mentally disabled children. There is significant difference (calculated ‘t’ value 48.82, P>0.05) in quality of life among parents between physically disabled and mentally disabled children. Overall mean percentage in parents of physically disabled children was 78.72 with mean and standard deviation of 78.72±2.68 which was higher than overall mean percentage in parents of mentally disabled children, which was 68.96 with mean and standard deviation of 68.96±2.59. Area wise analysis revealed that the highest mean percentage was in the area of physical domain in physically disabled which is 84.27 with mean and standard deviation of 24.44±1.37 and in mentally disabled it is 59.24 with the mean and standard deviation of17.18±1.55.In the area of psychological domain the mean percentage was 69.44with mean and standard deviation of17.36±0.96 among parents of physically disabled, which is slightly higher than mean percentage 69.04 with mean and standard deviation of 17.26±1.4 among parents of mentally disabled children. In the area of social relationship domain, the mean percentage was 82.61with mean and standard deviation of 10.74±1.01 among parents of physically disabled children, which was higher than mean percentage 74.92with mean and standard deviation of 9.74±1.01among parents of mentally disabled children. In environmental domain, the mean percentage was 79.33 with the mean and standard deviation of 26.18±1.52 among parents of physically disabled children which was higher than the mean percentage 75.09 with the mean and standard deviation of 68.96±2.59 among parents of mentally disabled children. There is no significant association between the quality of life among parents between physically disabled and mentally disabled children and their selected demographic variables.

KEYWORDS: Comparative, Parents of Physically Disabled and Mentally Disabled, WHOQOL Assessment Scale.

INTRODUCTION:

Many children around the globe are facing mental and physical disabilities.¹ Children born with a disability because of genetic, environmental or unexplained reasons. Families who have a child with disability incur emotional and economical hardships. Nowadays the term quality of life is increasingly projected in relations to the past and concerns a variety of sections and activities. It is fact that many definitions are found, as any assessment of quality of life is essentially subjective.²At the same time, quality of life is a multidimensional and volatile concept, which is difficult to be defined and measured.³

Quality of life is a social construct and can be defined as the individual's overall expectations for well-being, which includes both physical and psychological health-related dimensions.⁴ According to the World Health Organization, quality of life concerns the subjective perception of the individual about his place in life according to the cultural context and value system in which he lives and develops, depending on his personal its goals, expectations, interests, standards and concerns.⁵ Quality of life means the positive or negative characteristics, which determine the way of life of a person compared to the considered as standard characteristics of the way of life of another person.⁵

Disability is any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being. Disabilities are of five types namely locomotor, visual, hearing, speaking and mental disabilities⁶. In India the proportion of different types of disability among people with disability reported as: (i) seeing 18.8%, (ii) hearing 18.9% (iii) speech 7.5% (iv) movement 20.3% (v) mental retardation 7.6% (vi) mental illness 2.7%, (vii) multiple disabilities 7.9% (viii) Any other 18.4%.⁶

In one of the Indian statistical studies in an urban setting shows it is very urgent to address the issues of mothers since the number of mentally challenged children are very high in those areas. The data are as follows “As per census 2010, statistical analysis of mentally challenged population in Kolkota (India) reports that in the urban setting, there are 1,81,981 mentally challenged population and in the rural setting the population are 88,861 making a grand total of 2,70,842.

As per 2011 census, Karnataka has showed a disabled population of 9,40,643 out of which 6,61,139 live in villages and 2,79,904 in urban areas. The literate disable population is 4,73,844 which constitutes 51.40 percentage of the total disabled population. Most of the families with disabled persons live below poverty line. Lack of facilities and opportunities prevent disabled people from gaining suitable education training and employment.⁷

Thus, the familial and societal strengthening of the parents of these children is essentially significant, when we deal with the problems related with the any kind of handicaps, particularly with the mentally challenged. Moreover, such parents might consider their children as a liability in their life mainly due to the ignorance in indulging meaningfully in managing their situations.⁸

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM:

A Comparative study to assess the quality of life among parents between physically disabled and mentally disabled children of selected special schools, Mangaluru.

OBJECTIVES:

The objectives of the study are to:

· To assess the quality of life of parents of children with physical and mental disabilities.

· To compare the quality of life among parents between physically and mentally disabled children.

· To find out the association between the quality of life among parents of physically disabled children with their selected demographic variables.

· To find out the association between the quality of life among parents of mentally disabled children with their selected demographic variables.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS:

H₁: There will be a significant difference between the quality of life among parents of Physically disabled and mentally disabled children.

H₂: There will be a significant association between the quality of life and the selected demographic variables among parents of physically disabled children.

H3: There will be significant association between the quality of life among parents of mentally disabled children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Research approach:

The researcher utilized comparative descriptive research approach

Research design:

In this study, comparative descriptive design was adopted to assess and compare the quality of life among parents of physically disabled and mentally disabled children of selected special schools, Mangaluru.

Research setting:

The setting for the study was special schools such as St. Agnes special school, Lion’s special school and Mangala Jyothi Integrated school Mangaluru.

Population:

In this study, population consisted of parents of physically and mentally disabled children of selected special schools, Mangaluru and who fulfilled the inclusion criteria.

Sample:

The sample would comprise of 100 parents. Fifty each parents of physically disabled and mentally disabled are selected from various special schools, Mangaluru.

Sampling technique:

Special schools are selected by purposive sampling technique and subjects are selected by convenient sampling

Description of the final tools:

The tool used in the study consists of 2 parts

Part 1: Socio Demographic proforma.

Part 2: Structured knowledge questionnaire.

Plan for Data Analysis:

The data were analysed by using both descriptive and inferential statistics

· Organization of ungrouped data into grouped data.

· Frequencies and percentages were used for analysis of socio-demographic characteristics.

· Calculation of mean, standard deviation of pre and post-test scores.

· Paired ‘t’ test was used to ascertain whether there is significant difference in the mean knowledge score of pre-test and post-test values.

· Chi- square test was used to find the association between socio-demographic variables with pre-test knowledge scores.

RESULTS:

Section I: Description of demographic characteristics of parents among physically disabled and mentally disabled children:

Highest percentage 60% of fathers from physically disabled and 70% from mentally disabled are belongs to age group 36 – 45 years. Highest percentage 58% of mothers from physically disabled and 76% from mentally disabled are belongs to age group 26 – 35 years. Among fathers, highest percentage 28% of samples from physically disabled and 40% from mentally disabled had education of high school level and mothers highest percentage 36% of samples from physically disabled and 48% from mentally disabled had education of graduation and high school level respectively. Highest 50% and 46% samples from physically disabled and mentally disabled were Hindus respectively. Highest percentage 60% of samples from physically disabled and 62% from mentally disabled had income between 16000 and 20000 respectively. Regarding type of family in physically disabled and mentally disabled were majority 54%and 64% belonged to nuclear family. Considering the relationship of husband and wife, both physically disabled 100% and mentally disabled 100% groups were maintaining good relationship. History of physical illness in the family was not found in mentally disabled group where as 4% parents of physically disabled had history of physical illness in the family. There were no history of mental illness was found in physically disabled group where as 12% parents of mentally disabled had history of mental illness in the family. Highest of 90% samples of physically disabled and92% parents of mentally disabled had non consanguineous marriage.

Section II: Description of demographic characteristics of physically disabled and mentally disabled children:

Highest of 64% from physically disabled and 64% from mentally disabled were belongs to the age group between 11 and 15 years of age. Considering gender wise distribution, 50% of physically disabled children and 58% of mentally disabled children were males and50% of physically disabled and 42% of mentally disabled children were females. Highest of 56% each in physically disabled and mentally disabled children had moderate disability. Highest of 58% children of physically disabled and 46% children of mentally disabled had transport system for travelling.

Section III: Assessment of quality of life among parents between physically disabled and mentally disabled children of selected special schools.

Overall and area wise mean, standard deviation and mean percentage scores of quality of life among physically disabled and mentally disabled children of selected special schools.

S. No	Area	Maximum score	Physically disabled(n=50)		Mentally disabled(n=50)
S. No	Area	Maximum score	Mean ± SD	Mean percentage	Mean± SD	Mean percentage
1.	Physical domain	29	24.44±1.37	84.27	17.18± 1.55	59.24
2.	Psychological domain	25	17.36±0.96	69.44	17.26± 1.4	69.04
3.	Social relationship	13	10.74±1.01	82.61	9.74 ± 1.01	74.92
4.	Environment	33	26.18 ± 1.52	79.33	24.78 ± 1.52	75.09
	Overall	100	78.72±2.68	78.72	68.96±2.59	68.96

Data presented in the table shows the area wise comparison of quality of life among parents of physically disabled and mentally disabled children. The calculated ‘t’ value in physical domain was 35.06 which is much greater than the tabled value 1.660. Hence there was significant difference in quality of life in this area. Similarly in the areas of psychological, social and environmental domains calculated ‘t’ value was greater than the tabled value 1.660. Hence the null hypothesis is rejected in these areas. Therefore, the ‘t’ value concludes that there is difference in quality of life among parents between physically disabled and mentally disabled children in areas like physical domain, psychological domain, social relationship domain and environmental domain.

Section V: Association between quality of life among parents of physically disabled children with their selected demographic variables.

Association between quality of life among parents of mentally disabled children with their selected demographic variables. n=50

S. No	Demographic variables	χ²	p	df
1	Age of the father	0.0007	0.97859	1
2	Age of the mother	2.7927	0.247493	1
3.	Education of father	4.1386	0.246878	2
4.	Education of mother	5.0028	0.17159	2
5	Religion	2.0904	0.351615	2
6	Occupation of father	0.0072	0.932514	2
7	Occupation of mother	1.0321	0.309657	2
8	Monthly income of the family	3.4756	0.175903	2
9	Type of family	3.7254	0.155251	3
10	History of physical illness in the family	3.212	0.201	2
11	Addiction to any bad habits by the father	2.8937	0.88924	1
12	If yes, type of bad habit	0.0356	0.850436	1
13	Type of marriage	1.1038	0.293431	2
14	Child’s age	0.215	0.642857	1
15	Gender of the child	0.7389	0.39008
16	Level of disability of the child	5.1372	0.076642	1
17	Availability of transport system	1.6017	0.2056	1

P<0.05, *S=significant

Data in the above table reveals that there is no significant association between the demographic variables and the quality of life among parents of physically disabled children. Hence the null hypotheses was accepted that there is no significant association between quality of life among parents of physically disabled children with regards to demographic variables and the research hypothesis was rejected.

Section VI: Association of quality of life among parents of mentally disabled children with their selected demographic variables.

Association between quality of life among parents of mentally disabled children with their selected demographic variables. n=50

Sl.no	Demographic variables	χ²	p	df
1	Age of the father	0.8929	0.3447	1
2	Age of the mother	0.443	0.5056	1
3.	Education of father	1.458	0.4823	2
4.	Education of mother	0.926	0.6294	2
5	Religion	1.562	0.4577	2
6	Occupation of father	0.097	0.9528	2
7	Occupation of mother	0.626	0.7309	2
8	Monthly income of the family	1.925	0.3819	2
9	Type of family	0.520	0.4704	1
10	History of mental illness in the family	0.284	0.5940	1
11	Addiction to any bad habits by the father	0.017	0.8952	1
13	Type of marriage	0.407	0.5231	1
14	Child’s age	3.142	0.2077	2
15	Gender of the child	0.670	0.412	1
16	Level of disability of the child	0.3472	0.5556	1
17	Availability of transport system	0.013	0.9077	1

P<0.05, *S=significant NS=Not significant

The data depicted in the table reveals that the calculated P value of demographic variables like age, education, religion, occupation, monthly income, type of family, history of physical and mental illness, addiction to bad habits, type of marriage, child’s age, gender, level of disability and availability of transport system are more than the value at 0.05 level of significance. So the investigator accepts null hypothesis for all the variables. Hence there is no significant association of quality-of-life score of mentally disabled children with all the demographic variables.

DISCUSSION:

The results of the present study confirmed that there was a considerable improvement of knowledge after the administration of empowerment programme on cardiac health and it is also statistically established as significant at 0.05 level. The study revealed that overall pre-test mean knowledge score was 35.70% and post test score was 61.22% with 25.5% mean knowledge enhancement. The overall mean knowledge score during pre-test is 9.67 and 19.71in the post-test. Post test knowledge was found statistically significant by using paired ‘t’ test (t = 47.74)

The socio demographic variables in the present study such as age (χ² =32.84, p<0.05), educational status (p =0.001, p<0.05), occupation (χ² =13.47, p<0.05), history of diabetes mellitus (χ² =1.06, p<0.05) and information regarding cardiac health (p =0.001, p<0.05) were found to be significant associated with the pretest knowledge scores at 0.05 level hence null hypothesis is rejected and research hypothesis is accepted. There was no association found between pre test knowledge scores and demographic variables like religion, marital status, monthly income and family history of cardiac disease hence null hypothesis is accepted and research hypothesis is accepted and research hypothesis is rejected.

The findings were consistent with the study conducted by to assess the Effectiveness of planned teaching program on prevention of coronary artery disease among older adults in a selected rural community at Mangalore. The total mean percentage of the pre test knowledge score was 3.19 and the mean post test knowledge score was ±(60.87%) with mean and SD 18.87 1.61 significance of difference between the pre test and±SD 28.43±91.70% with mean post test knowledge scores was statistically listed using paired ‘t’ test and it was found to be significant (t=29, P<0.05). It is found that planned teaching programme is very effective in improving the knowledge and also practice of older adults.⁸

There was a significant improvement in knowledge scores of premenopausal womens after conducting empowerment regarding cardiac health. Thus H₁hypothesis is accepted. The H₂ is partly accepted for significant association found between pre- test knowledge scores and the socio demographic variables such as age, educational status, occupation, history of diabetes mellitus and information regarding cardiac health at 0.05 level.

CONCLUSIONS:

This is concluded that the study has brought out various implications and provided recommendations. Research is also needed to plan and evaluate interventions which would be effective in improving the quality of health among parents of physically disabled and mentally disabled children.

REFERENCE:

1. Stewart J, Manmathan G, Wilkinson P. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, A review of contemporary guidance and literature. 3 Journal of Royal Society of Cardiovascular Disease. 2017; 6: 1–9.

2. Enas A Enas. How to beat the heart disease epidemic among south Asians. Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2005: 3-37.

3. Black J, Jacobs E. Lukeman and Sorensen’s Medical surgical nursing, Physiologic approach. 3^rd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders Company; 2001.927-929.

4. WHO Scientific group. Cardiovascular disease risk factors, new areas of research. WHO Technical Report Series. 2002; 841:1-2.

5. Lewis, Heitkemper, Dirksen. Medical surgical nursing Assessment and Management of Clinical Problem. 6^th ed. USA: Mosby; 2000.802

6. Chow C, Cardona M, Raju PK, Iyengar S, Sukumar A, Raju R, et al. Cardiovascular disease and risk factors among 345 adults in rural India – The Andhra Pradesh Rural Health Initiative. Int J Cardiol. 2007; 116: 180-5.

7. Krishnan MN. Coronary heart disease and risk factors in India – On the brink of an epidemic. Indian Heart J. 2012; 64: 364-7.

8. Mary A. Effectiveness of structured teaching programme regarding prevention of coronary artery disease among rural population, Mangalore. 2008; 100-102.

Received on 08.09.2025 Revised on 20.01.2026

Accepted on 28.03.2026 Published on 05.05.2026

Available online from May 09, 2026

A and V Pub J. of Nursing and Medical Res. 2026;5(2):67-72.

DOI: 10.52711/jnmr.2026.14

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Creative Commons License.

Quality of life	Mean±SD	Mean difference	t' value
Physically disabled	78.72± 2.68	9.76	48.82*
Mentally disabled	68.96± 2.59	9.76	48.82*

Sl.no	Areas	Physically disabled (n=50)	Mentally disabled(n=50)
Sl.no	Areas	Mean±SD	Mean±SD	Mean difference	t' value
1	Physical domain	24.44±1.37	17.18± 1.55	7.26	35.06*
2	Psychological domain	17.36±0.96	17.26± 1.4	0.1	3.66*
3	Social relationship	10.74±1.01	9.74 ± 1.01	1	9.62*
4	Environment	26.18 ± 1.52	24.78 ± 1.52	1.4	12.91*