The Child With Chronic Illness
Joseph P. Damore JR. MD
INTRODUCTION
Estimates are that between 10 and 20 million children and adolescents in the United States suffer from some type of chronic physical illness or dysfunction: a condition or impairment that is expected to last for an extended period and requires substantial medical attention, extensive hospitalization, or in-home health services (Committee on Children with Disabilities and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 1993). Chronic conditions can be described in terms of their duration and severity. Though each condition varies significantly in terms of its course, a chronic condition tends to last 3 months or longer (Perrin et al., 1993). Similarly, severity of a condition refers to the effects of the disorder on a child’s physical, educational, emotional, or social functioning (Stein et al., 1987). Examples of typical chronic conditions in children include the following:
Asthma
Diabetes
Seizure disorders
Neuromuscular disease
Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
Solid tumors
Chronic hematologic disorders (especially leukemia, lymphoma, sickle cell anemia, the thalassemias, and hemophilia)
Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis
Cystic fibrosis
Congenital heart disease
Cancer
Chronic illnesses are associated with the potential for long-term sequellae and, in most cases, death. Their life-threatening quality tends to drive the psychological reactions seen in affected children and their families. Estimates vary about the incidence of psychiatric disorders in children and adolescents affected by chronic illness. It has long been posited that children with chronic physical illness or impairment are at an increased risk for psychiatric and psychosocial morbidity. While some evidence suggests that the rate of psychiatric comorbidity in such children may be as high as twice that of their healthy counterparts, other research suggests that the psychiatric impact of such conditions is small (Canning, Canning, & Boyce, 1992). At Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, the Pediatric Psychiatry Service conducted 74 new consultations in a 1-year period. The treatment of patients with chronic illness accounted for more than 420 visits to the Psychiatry Service in that year alone (Damore, 1998). Reports also have shown that such conditions create significant disturbances in the quality of life in at least 10% of such children (Committee on Children with Disabilities and Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, 1993). Furthermore, these illnesses can and often do disrupt relationships between family members (Jessop, Reissman, & Stein, 1988; Hoore & Kerley, 1991). Regardless of discrepancies reported in the literature, such statistics obtained in a naturalistic clinical setting are difficult to ignore.
Clinical Warning
Chronic physical conditions have been demonstrated to be a major risk factor for grade repetition and for placement in special education programs (Gortmaker, Walker, Weitzman, & Sobol, 1990).
This chapter is meant to provide the pediatric primary care provider with an overview of common psychosocial sequellae to most chronic illnesses seen in children. The first section presents usual, nonpathologic responses encountered when children and families face chronic illness. The second section discusses problematic behaviors providers may encounter in children with chronic illness and explores possible interventions.
NORMAL RESPONSES TO CHRONIC ILLNESS
As a result of advances in medical technology, many childhood illnesses that once were rapidly fatal can now be managed and do not necessarily result in a child’s death. Though the death of an affected child may be forestalled or even prevented, the shock and disbelief that accompany the diagnosis and the uncertainty associated with treatment and follow-up normally create ripples of sadness and fear.
Diagnostic Phase
In her book Armfuls of Time, Barbara Sourkes shares the following description of a colorful drawing made by an 8-year-old child recently diagnosed with cancer:
“When I heard that I had leukemia, I turned pale with shock. That’s why I chose yellow—, it’s a pale color. Scared is red—for blood. I was scared of needles, of seeing all the doctors, of what was going to happen to me. I was MAD [black] about lots of things: staying in the hospital, taking medicines, bone marrows, spinal taps, IVs, being awakened in the middle of the night. I was sad [purple] that I didn’t have my toys, and that I was missing out on everything. I chose blue for lonely because I was crying about not going home and not being able to go outside. Green is hope: getting better, going home, eating food from home, and seeing my friends” (1995, p. 31).
The feelings that children associate with the diagnosis of a chronic, potentially life-threatening illness are clearly evident in this description. Other feelings children report during and immediately following diagnosis include terror, pain, embarrassment, and shame. Clearly, the family’s world
is no longer the same. The diagnosis stands as a partition between health and illness. The family finds itself in the middle of an experience that often includes painful procedures and scary tests. Children and parents are forced to cope with the uncertainty of illness that threatens the need for consist-ency and its implied safety. Because of the frightening impact of such news, providers must be candid and reassuring, while presenting realistic hope (Sourkes, 1995). Chapter 17, Part 2 of Chapter 19, and Part 2 of Chapter 55 present views and opinions about what it feels like to receive such news, while also emphasizing the importance of realistic hope.
is no longer the same. The diagnosis stands as a partition between health and illness. The family finds itself in the middle of an experience that often includes painful procedures and scary tests. Children and parents are forced to cope with the uncertainty of illness that threatens the need for consist-ency and its implied safety. Because of the frightening impact of such news, providers must be candid and reassuring, while presenting realistic hope (Sourkes, 1995). Chapter 17, Part 2 of Chapter 19, and Part 2 of Chapter 55 present views and opinions about what it feels like to receive such news, while also emphasizing the importance of realistic hope.
The initial shock of the diagnosis may last days to weeks. Responses to such bad news are idiosyncratic, and families cope using a wide spectrum of emotions. Tears, anger, bargaining, blame, and shame all may be encountered during this time. Because each family demonstrates different levels of resilience to such trauma, predicting when such emotions will cool is difficult. Providers working with this population must be aware of the range of emotions, allowing children and parents to grieve and mourn in their own way. There is no “right” or “wrong” way. If the need to mourn is understood and the process is given time and support, most children and families progress to the next level of coping without psychological sequellae.
Chronic Phase
For most children and their families, the initial shock of diagnosis eventually gives way to a re-equilibration of functioning. The family develops a routine involving trips to the clinic, follow-up tests, and at-home monitoring, procedures, and management. Emotionally, a pattern develops as well. Sourkes reports that “fluidity is the hallmark of the child’s response to diagnosis: different emotions surge to the forefront or recede into the background at different times. In addition, anticipatory grief—grief associated with the potential for loss—begins with diagnosis, and waxes and wanes throughout the illness experience” (1995, p. 34).
In this chronic phase, children and their families may attempt to cope with the illness in a variety of ways. Some opt for a “business as usual” approach, attempting to maintain activities enjoyed prior to diagnosis as much as possible. Denial of the severity of the illness and its consequences often is encountered in families who follow this approach.
• Clinical Pearl
The provider should remember that denial is not necessarily pathologic. Provided that the family keeps clinic appointments, follows instructions about care, and has realistic expectations of treatment, the clinician may reasonably support such a coping style.
Other families attempt to cope with an illness through cognitive mastery. Such attempts at mastery are associated with both factual and distorted information regarding treatment and prognosis. Sometimes providers misinterpret attempts at mastery on the part of the parents as second-guessing or challenging the clinician.
• Clinical Pearl
Providers might misinterpret a parent’s practice of writing down everything said, including blood count results, as overcontrolling and evidence of mistrust. Only when providers understand the importance of a parent’s need for intellectual mastery over the illness will they be able to address adequately the family’s inquiries and emotional needs.
It is not unusual during this phase to find that children, and occasionally parents, view the illness as punishment for previous bad acts. Children, who use concrete, cause-and-effect systems of thought, may conceptualize their illness as punishment in an attempt to make sense of it. Such a conceptualization can sometimes lead to the development of overcompliance or oppositionality (Sourkes, 1995). Work with these children involves challenging their misconceptions and facilitating an understanding of illness as “nobody’s fault.” During this phase, chronically ill children and their families most often long for a return to the time before diagnosis. Sourkes writes: “For the child, facets of ‘normal’ include being regular (not special), ordinary (not exceptional), and fitting in (not being different). From looking to feeling to being normal, the concept has implications for the child’s sense of competence and self esteem” (1995, p. 82).
• Clinical Pearl
Continuing to treat their child as normal is a formidable task for parents, especially regarding discipline. However, their ability to do so sends a critical message to their child that the illness may be abnormal, but the child—as a person—is normal (Sourkes, 1995).