High levels of parenting stress, defined as a caregiver or parent feeling stress or frustration from parenting, or feeling like they are unable to cope with parenting, has been previously shown to be associated with an increased likelihood of neglect, child maltreatment, and household dysfunction (Gonzalez & MacMillan, 2008). The consequences of parenting stress may impact a child’s social and emotional development, as well as the quality of caregiving and caregiving behavior (Bailey et al., 2012; Pereira et al., 2012). Furthermore, high parenting stress may make for more disjointed family environments and experiences, which may lead to disruptive behavior in children (Coldwell et al., 2008). Prior research has shown that children with caregivers experiencing higher parenting stress have a higher likelihood of anxiety and depression (Fiese & Winter, 2010).
Parenting behavior and styles are often intergenerational, with parents learning how to parent from their own parental relationships (Letourneau et al., 2019). Trauma may also be intergenerational, with parents who have experienced adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), which include childhood experiences of family dysfunction, neglect, or abuse, may be more likely to expose their own children to trauma (Felitti et al., 1998; Letourneau et al., 2019). The experience of multiple ACEs in childhood has been associated with an array of possible poor physical, mental, and social outcomes in adulthood (Felitti et al., 1998). Prior work examining parenting stress and ACEs found that parents who had experienced higher levels of ACEs had higher levels of parental stress (Steele et al., 2016). More recent work examining the relationship between parenting stress and the exposure of children to ACEs, found that children with caregivers experiencing high rates of parenting stress had a higher likelihood of also experiencing four or more ACEs by age 18, with four or more ACEs a commonly used metric of high ACE exposure (Crouch et al., 2019).
In contrast to ACEs are positive childhood experiences (PCEs). PCEs are experiences that help a child to grow into an adult with a healthy social emotional status (Sege & Harper Browne, 2017). Examples of PCEs include the experience of safe, stable, and nurturing relationships or healthy peer-to-peer social interactions (Sege & Harper Browne, 2017). Not only do PCEs support healthy child development, but they may mitigate or moderate ACE exposure, with prior research finding that PCEs can moderate anxiety and depression caused from ACEs (Sege & Harper Browne, 2017; Qu et al., 2022). The Healthy Outcomes Positive Experiences (HOPE) provides a framework for understanding PCEs and how public health efforts can be geared to improve experiences for children (Sege & Harper Browne, 2017). The HOPE framework categorizes PCEs into the following types of childhood experiences: 1) nurturing, supportive relationships, 2) safe, equitable learning environments, 3) constructive social engagement, and 4) social emotional competencies (Sege & Harper Browne, 2017). These have been previously measured using the following: after school activities; volunteering in community, school, or church events; having a mentor for advice or guidance; being able to share ideas with a caregiver; living in a safe neighborhood; living in a supportive neighborhood; and being part of a resilient family.
PCEs are often thought of as the other side of the “coin” for childhood experiences and have recently begun to be recognized as just as important to child and adolescent health as ACEs (Crouch et al., 2021a; Crouch et al., 2021b; Crouch et al., 2023). PCEs have not been found to be equally distributed, with racial/ethnic minority children less likely to receive PCEs than non-minority children and children in poverty also less likely to receive PCEs than children residing above the poverty level (Crouch et al., 2021b). Recent research has found that both ACEs and PCEs are associated with the mental and physical health and well-being of children and adolescents (Crouch et al., 2023). The shift toward also examining the role of PCEs and resilience in children has been a relatively recent shift in the literature, with PCEs associated with a higher likelihood of childhood flourishing (Crouch et al., 2022).
Despite the potential mitigation of PCEs on ACEs, prior studies on the increased likelihood of a child experiencing ACEs due to parenting stress have left a critical question unanswered: whether high parenting stress may decrease a child’s likelihood of experiencing PCEs. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine whether higher levels of parenting stress are associated with the lower likelihood of experiencing PCEs among children. We hypothesized that children with parents who are experiencing high levels of parenting stress are less likely to experience PCEs. The findings from this study can be used to develop interventions that reduce parenting stress, promote PCEs, and improve the overall well-being of families and children.
Method
This study used the 2019–2020 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH), a cross-sectional survey, both mail and online, conducted by the Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health (DRC) in the United States. To be eligible, respondents had to be a parent or caregiver of at least one child between the ages of 0 and 17 who resided in the home at the time of the interview. If a caregiver had more than one child, one child in that household was randomly chosen by the NSCH. While the caregiver is the respondent, the results were discussed in terms of the child, per the NSCH. For more information on the NSCH, including sampling methods and selection, please see the DRC website (http://www.childhealthdaa.org/learn/NSCH).
The 2019–2020 NSCH had a total of 72,210 complete interviews. From those 72,210 children, the study sample was further limited to children six years of age and older, who were eligible to experience PCEs (n = 50,138), then further restricted to children who had complete demographic, PCEs, and caregivers’ parenting stress responses, resulting in a final study sample of 49,484 children. While children who are younger than six years of age may experience many of the PCEs included in this study, the NSCH only asks most of the questions used for PCEs in a screener given to caregivers of children who are six year of age or older.
The seven PCEs measured in this study were developed and guided by the HOPE framework. The seven PCEs included participation in after school activities; volunteering in community, school, or church events; having a mentor for advice or guidance; being able to share ideas with a caregiver; living in a safe neighborhood; living in a supportive neighborhood; and being part of a resilient family. The PCEs and their associated NSCH questions are shown in Table 1 and have been previously quantified (Crouch et al., 2021a; Crouch et al., 2021b).
Table 1
Positive Childhood Experience (PCE) survey questions included in the 2019–2020 National Survey of Children’s Health
Positive childhood experience | Survey questions |
|---|---|
After school activities | During the past twelve months, did this child participate in a sports team or did he or she take sports lessons after school or on weekends? Any clubs or organizations after school or on weekends? Any other organized activities or lessons, such as music, dance, language, or arts? |
Volunteer in community, school, or church | During the past twelve months did the child participate in any type of community service or volunteer work at school, place of worship, or in the community? |
Mentor for advice or guidance | Other than you or other adults in your home, is there at least one adult in this child’s school, neighborhood, or community who knows this child well and who he or she can rely on for advice or guidance? |
Share ideas with caregiver | How well can you and this child share ideas or talk about things that really matter? |
Live in safe neighborhood | To what extent do you agree with these statements about your neighborhood or community… the child is safe in our neighborhood? |
Live in supportive neighborhood | To what extent do you agree with these statements about your neighborhood or community… 1) people in this neighborhood help each other out, 2) we watch out for each other’s children in this neighborhood, and 3) when we encounter difficulties, we know where to go for help in our community? |
Family resilience | When your family faces problems, how often are you likely to do each of the following? 1) talk together about what to do, 2) work together to solve our problems, 3) know we have strengths to draw on, and 4) stay hopeful even in difficult times? |
Parenting stress was quantified using the NSCH parenting aggravation composite score, created by the NSCH. The NSCH uses three questions to determine this scoring: 1) how often during the past month the caregiver felt it was much harder to care for his/her/their child than most children of the same age, 2) how often during the past month the caregiver felt the child did things that bothered him/her/them, and 3) how often during the past month the caregiver felt angry with the child. Response options reported to the NSCH include never, seldom, usually, always. The number of usually or always responses was then counted by the NSCH. If caregivers responded “usually” or “always” to any one of the three questions, the NSCH determines that the child was designated as having a caregiver with “high parenting stress”. Because the NSCH creates this as a composite dichotomous score in the NSCH data set released to researchers, rather than sharing the results of this score as a continuous variable, this is a limitation of the NSCH’s creation of this variable.
This measure was previously used in a study examining ACES and parenting stress (Crouch et al., 2019). Covariates selected were based on the developmental-ecological child maltreatment model, which includes the following: sociodemographic characteristics of the child, caregiver, household (Belsky, 1993). The developmental ecological model notes that there are varying levels of influence that may affect child welfare, including individual, familial, and community levels of influence. Therefore, both individual child characteristics and caregiver characteristics were included in our analysis. Child characteristics included sex, age, race/ethnicity, and whether the child had special healthcare needs. Age of the child was divided into: 6 to 12, and 13 to 17, based on the NSCH screener question categories Race/ethnicity of the child had four categories: Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and Multi-Racial/Other, Non-Hispanic. Special healthcare needs of the child was designated using a five-item tool from the NSCH, which asks about physical, functional limitations, medication needs, emotional and mental health needs. This is a screener developed by the NSCH to identify children with a wide range of chronic conditions and needs, versus focusing on a single diagnosis. Characteristics of the household included primary language spoken in the home, the highest educational attainment of a parent or guardian in the household, family structure, and poverty/income level, using percentage of the federal poverty level, as provided by the NSCH. Primary language was English or Other. The highest educational attainment of the parent or guardian had two categories: less than or equal to high school degree/GED and those with at least some college education. The family structure of the household included the following categories: two parents, currently married; two parents, not currently married; single caregiver; grandparent household; and other family types. The poverty/income levels were 0–99% of the federal poverty level (FPL), 100%–199% FPL, 200%- 399% FPL, and 400% FPL or above. Federal poverty levels are used by the NSCH to simplify the range of incomes that could be present across a national sample with varying costs of living. Furthermore, as poverty is associated with parenting stress, this an important variable to control for.
As outlined by the NSCH SAS codebook, our analyses used survey sampling weights, cluster, and stratum, in order to account for the distributions in race, ethnicity, and gender of children in the United States. Further information on the sampling plan and the codebook can be found on the DRC website (http://www.childhealthdaa.org/learn/NSCH). Chi-square tests were used to examine differences in each child and caregiver’s characteristics and parenting stress, to determine if there were differences in demographic characteristics, by parenting stress. With such a large sample size, the alpha value was set at 0.01. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine the association between high vs. low parenting stress and PCEs. Finally, all analyses were conducted using SAS, version 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc.). This study was approved by the [name concealed for review] Institutional Review Board as exempt.
Results
Just over half of our sample were male (50.9%), 13 to 17 years of age (50.7%), and Non-Hispanic White (50.5%, Table 2). Nearly a quarter (23.6%) of children had special healthcare needs. English was not the primary language for 14.0% of our sample. The majority of children lived with caregivers who had at least some college education (70.4%) and in households with two parents who were currently married (64.3%). Approximately one in six children (17.4%) resided below the poverty line.
Table 2
Characteristics of respondents to the 2019–2020 National Survey of Children’s Health overall and by high parenting stress, n = 49,484
Characteristic | All (%) | High parenting stress (%) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
Characteristics of child | 4.1 | ||
Sex of child | 0.0238 | ||
Male | 50.9 | 4.8 | |
Female | 49.1 | 3.3 | |
Age of Child | 0.5373 | ||
6–12 years old | 49.3 | 4.9 | |
13–17 years old | 50.7 | 6.3 | |
Race/Ethnicity of Child | 0.2694 | ||
Non-Hispanic White | 50.5 | 3.7 | |
Non-Hispanic African-American | 13.3 | 5.6 | |
Hispanic | 25.5 | 4.1 | |
“Other” Non-Hispanic | 10.6 | 3.9 | |
Special health care needs | <0.0001 | ||
Yes | 23.6 | 16.1 | |
Characteristics of Parent/Household | |||
Primary Language | 0.3131 | ||
Not English | 14.0 | 4.7 | |
Guardian Education | 0.6128 | ||
Less than high school or high school | 29.6 | 5.4 | |
Some college or more | 70.4 | 5.6 | |
Family Structure | <0.0001 | ||
Two parents, currently married | 64.3 | 4.5 | |
Two parents, not currently married | 7.1 | 6.1 | |
Single parent (mother or father) | 23.2 | 7.5 | |
Grandparent household | 3.8 | 7.9 | |
Other family type | 1.6 | 10.7 | |
Poverty/ Income Level | 0.0059 | ||
0–99% Federal Poverty Level | 17.4 | 7.1 | |
100%–199% Federal Poverty Level | 21.9 | 5.9 | |
200%–399% Federal Poverty Level | 29.7 | 5.3 | |
400% Federal Poverty Level or above | 31.0 | 4.7 | |
Just over four percent (4.1%) of children lived with caregivers experiencing high parenting stress. There were statistically significant differences by parenting stress for special healthcare needs, family structure, and poverty level. Children with special healthcare needs had a higher rate of having a caregiver experiencing high parenting stress (p < 0.0001). Children with “other family type” had a higher rate of having a caregiver experiencing high parenting stress than children with two parents, currently married (10.7% versus 4.5%, p < 0.0001). Children residing below the federal poverty level had a higher rate of a caregiver experiencing high parenting stress than children residing at 400% or above the federal poverty level (7.1% versus 4.7%, p = 0.0059).
Each PCE was experienced by at least two-thirds of the children in the sample, with the exception of volunteering in community, school, or church at 40.5% (Table 3). Children with caregivers who experienced high parenting stress were less likely to experience each type of PCE. Compared to children with a caregiver with low parenting stress, children with a caregiver with high parenting stress had a lower percentage of experiencing: after school activities (60.7% versus 78.9%, p < 0.0001); volunteering in their community, school, or church (28.6% versus 41.2%, p < 0.0001); mentor for advice or guidance (81.8% versus 88.1%, p < 0.0001); sharing ideas with caregiver (25.3% versus 65.4%, p < 0.0001); living in a safe neighborhood (51.2% versus 65.9%, p < 0.001); living in a supportive neighborhood (41.0% versus 56.6%, p < 0.0001); and family resilience (60.4% versus 84.3%, p < 0.0001).
Table 3
Types and numbers of positive childhood experience reported by respondents, by parenting stress, to the 2019–2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, n = 49,484
Positive childhood experience | Total sample weighted % | High parenting stress (%) | Low parenting stress (%) | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
After school activities | 77.9 | 60.7 | 78.9 | <0.0001 |
Volunteer in community, school, or church | 40.5 | 28.6 | 41.2 | <0.0001 |
Mentor for advice or guidance | 86.6 | 81.8 | 88.1 | <0.0001 |
Share ideas with caregiver | 63.2 | 25.3 | 65.4 | <0.0001 |
Live in safe neighborhood | 66.9 | 51.2 | 65.9 | <0.0001 |
Live in supportive neighborhood | 67.3 | 41.0 | 56.6 | <0.0001 |
Family resilience | 65.9 | 60.4 | 84.3 | <0.0001 |
In multivariable analysis adjusting for race/ethnicity, sex of child, age of child, special healthcare needs of child, primary language of child, caregiver education, family structure, and federal poverty level, children with caregivers experiencing high parenting stress had a lower odds of experiencing each type of PCE, with the exception of resilient family: after school activities (aOR 0.48; 95% CI 0.38–0.57); community volunteer (aOR 0.63; 95% CI 0.52–0.77); guiding mentor (aOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50–0.85); safe neighborhood (aOR 0.62; 95% CI 0.52–0.74); supportive neighborhood (aOR 0.63; 95% CI 0.53–0.74); and connected caregiver (aOR 0.23; 95% CI 0.18–0.29).
Female children had a higher likelihood of experiencing after-school activities, community volunteers, guiding mentor, and connected caregivers, than their male counterparts. Hispanic, Black, and “Other Non-Hispanic” children had a lower odds of experiencing a guiding mentor and a safe neighborhood. Children with special healthcare needs had a lower odds of experiencing each type of PCE, with the exception of guiding mentors. Children residing with a caregiver with a high school diploma or less had a lower likelihood of experiencing after-school activities, community volunteer, resilient family, and connected caregiver. Family structures of not married with two parents had a lower odds of after school, community volunteerism, and resilient family. Children residing below the federal poverty level were less likely to experience each type of PCE, with the exception of having a connected caregiver Table 4.
Table 4
Adjusted odds ratios and 95% Wald confidence intervals predicting positive childhood experiences (PCEs), among respondents to the 2019–2020 National Survey of Children’s Health, n = 49,484
Variable | Model 1 After school activities | Model 2 Community volunteer | Model 3 Guiding mentor | Model 4 Resilient Family | Model 5 Safe neighborhood | Model 6 Supportive neighborhood | Model 7 Connected Caregiver | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PEa | 95% CIb | PEa | 95% CIb | PEa | 95% CIb | PEa | 95% CIb | PEa | 95% CIb | PEa | 95% CIb | PEa | 95% CIb | |
Parenting stress | ||||||||||||||
High | 0.48 | 0.38–0.57 | 0.63 | 0.52–0.77 | 0.65 | 0.50–0.85 | 0.33 | 0.28–0.40 | 0.62 | 0.52–0.74 | 0.63 | 0.53–0.74 | 0.23 | 0.18–0.29 |
Low | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |||||||
Characteristics of child | ||||||||||||||
Race-ethnicity | ||||||||||||||
White, Non-Hispanic | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |||||||
Black, Non-Hispanic | 0.91 | 0.78–1.09 | 1.24 | 1.08–1.42 | 0.46 | 0.38–0.57 | 0.87 | 0.74–1.02 | 0.53 | 0.46–0.61 | 0.55 | 0.48–0.63 | 1.23 | 1.07–1.41 |
Hispanic | 0.91 | 0.77–1.08 | 0.75 | 0.65–0.86 | 0.41 | 0.34–0.50 | 0.97 | 0.81–1.16 | 0.53 | 0.46–0.61 | 0.54 | 0.47–0.62 | 1.22 | 1.06–1.40 |
Other, Non- Hispanic | 0.90 | 0.76–1.06 | 0.82 | 0.73–0.92 | 0.42 | 0.35–0.51 | 0.69 | 0.60–0.80 | 0.62 | 0.55–0.71 | 0.61 | 0.54–0.69 | 0.81 | 0.72–0.91 |
Sex of child | ||||||||||||||
Male | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |||||||
Female | 1.21 | 1.08–1.36 | 1.26 | 1.16–1.37 | 1.26 | 1.09–1.46 | 0.96 | 0.86–1.08 | 0.90 | 0.82–0.99 | 1.05 | 0.97–1.15 | 1.24 | 1.14–1.36 |
Age of child | ||||||||||||||
6–12 years old | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |||||||
13–17 years old | 1.41 | 1.26–1.58 | 2.31 | 2.13–2.51 | 0.98 | 0.84–1.13 | 0.75 | 0.67–0.84 | 1.10 | 1.01–1.21 | 1.01 | 0.93–1.10 | 0.64 | 0.58–0.69 |
Special health care needs | ||||||||||||||
Yes | 0.72 | 0.64–0.81 | 0.87 | 0.79–0.96 | 0.98 | 0.84–1.15 | 0.75 | 0.67–0.85 | 0.81 | 0.73–0.89 | 0.78 | 0.71–0.85 | 0.56 | 0.52–0.62 |
Primary language | ||||||||||||||
Not english | 0.77 | 0.62–0.96 | 0.75 | 0.62–0.91 | 0.48 | 0.38–0.60 | 0.82 | 0.66–1.02 | 1.07 | 0.89–1.29 | 0.99 | 0.82–1.18 | 0.69- | 0.57–0.83 |
Characteristics of caregiver/household | ||||||||||||||
Guardian education | ||||||||||||||
High school diploma or less | 0.42 | 0.37–0.48 | 0.54 | 0.48–0.62 | 0.89 | 0.74–1.06 | 0.80 | 0.69–0.91 | 0.95 | 0.84–1.07 | 0.92 | 0.81–1.03 | 0.86 | 0.76–0.97 |
Some college or more | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |||||||
Family structure | ||||||||||||||
Two parents, currently married | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |||||||
Two parents, not currently married | 0.79 | 0.63–0.98 | 0.55 | 0.45–0.66 | 1.03 | 0.78–1.38 | 0.75 | 0.59–0.96 | 0.84 | 0.69–1.02 | 0.74 | 0.61–0.90 | 0.90 | 0.82–1.20 |
Single parent | 0.75 | 0.65–0.86 | 0.65 | 0.58–0.73 | 0.77 | 0.65–0.92 | 0.71 | 0.61–0.81 | 0.82 | 0.73–0.92 | 0.68 | 0.61–0.75 | 1.03 | 0.91–1.15 |
Grandparent | 0.62 | 0.48–0.79 | 0.61 | 0.46–0.81 | 1.17 | 0.72–1.88 | 0.68 | 0.51–0.90 | 1.19 | 0.93–1.16 | 1.40 | 1.11–1.77 | 0.91 | 0.72–1.14 |
Other | 0.46 | 0.28–0.75 | 0.52 | 0.35–0.77 | 0.72 | 0.42–1.22 | 0.52 | 0.34–0.78 | 0.82 | 0.55–1.24 | 0.79 | 0.53–1.18 | 0.67 | 0.44–1.04 |
% Federal Poverty Level (FPL) | ||||||||||||||
0–99% FPL | 0.31 | 0.25–0.37 | 0.62 | 0.53–0.72 | 0.55 | 0.44–0.68 | 0.77 | 0.64–0.93 | 0.57 | 0.49–0.67 | 0.62 | 0.53–0.71 | 0.90 | 0.77–1.05 |
100%–199% FPL | 0.36 | 0.30–0.42 | 0.78 | 0.68–0.88 | 0.77 | 0.63–0.95 | 0.94 | 0.81–1.10 | 0.58 | 0.51–0.66 | 0.55 | 0.48–0.62 | 0.98 | 0.86–1.11 |
200%–399% FPL | 0.48 | 0.41–0.56 | 0.89 | 0.82–0.98 | 0.73 | 0.61–0.87 | 0.77 | 0.68–0.87 | 0.61 | 0.54–0.68 | 0.69 | 0.62–0.76 | 0.86 | 0.78–0.95 |
≥ 400% FPL | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | Referent | |||||||
Discussion
This is the first study, to our knowledge, to examine the association between high parenting stress and their child’s exposure to PCEs. These findings add to the ACE and PCE literature, finding that high parenting stress was associated with a lower likelihood of experiencing each type of PCE, with the exception of resilient family, raising concerns about the effects of high parenting stress. Prior work has examined the relationship between high parenting stress and ACEs, finding that children who resided with caregivers experiencing higher parenting stress had a higher odds of experiencing four or more ACEs in childhood and adolescence (Crouch et al., 2019). We cannot comment on the causal pathway between parenting stress and PCEs. For example, a child who does not have the opportunity to participate in after-school or community activities, or has no guiding adult outside the home, may increase the stress level inside a home; families living in unsafe or non-supportive neighborhoods may develop increased parenting stress as a result of working to keep the child “safely” inside. Alternately, stressed parents may have neither the resources nor capacity for seeking out PCE opportunities for their children. The actual association between parenting stress and PCEs may involve a bidirectional relationship between the two and warrants further study, particularly for caregivers with children residing in poverty or children with special healthcare needs.
Implications
Even without a definitive understanding of the causal pathway, efforts to reduce the level of parenting stress a caregiver is experiencing could potentially increase the exposure a child has to PCEs (Sege & Harper Browne, 2017). Continuing to support access and the availability of affordable classes or training programs for parents and caregivers is one step toward addressing parental stress. Ensuring that parents and caregivers have access to social supports and resources to manage stress through health care providers, or through community or government-sponsored programs is also important for addressing parental stress. For example, there are numerous programs such as the Triple P- positive parenting program, the Strengthening Families program, and the Maternal Infant Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIEHCV) that could be continued, expanded, and supported to target vulnerable families and that have previously been shown to reduce parenting stress (Sanders et al., 2014).
Improving access to PCEs for children is needed reduce variation in the PCEs available to children and adolescents. The implementation of PCEs in schools can help to promote equity and inclusion, meeting the needs of diverse children. Schools can also be a place to build community and gain social support for families and children, with a safe place to interact, build community, and subsequently potentially reduce parenting stress through the gains of a social network (Calp, 2020). Schools can also be a place to build upon community mentorship programs and other extracurricular activities for children and adolescents (King et al., 2018). Yet, one hindrance to the implementation of PCEs may be cost and access for all children.
We found that poverty matters for PCEs, with children residing in poverty less likely to experience PCEs. While parental stress from poverty or economic hardship was not measured here, it has been found that financial hardship may further exacerbate parenting stress (Conger et al., 1994; Steele et al., 2016). PCEs, such as after school activities or sports participation, may be costly. In a survey of families of middle and high school students whose children were interested, but did not participate in sports, 42% of parents reported that prohibitive costs were the main reason for lack of participation (Whitaker et al., 2019). Funding opportunities that more equitably distribute opportunities for all children to participate in activities is important. One example of supporting equitable sports participation is “Every Kids Sports”, a not-for-profit program that provides financial assistance to low-income families nationwide for enrollment in a variety of sporting activities (https://everykidsports.org/about/). Programs, non-profit organizations, and foundations that enable youth participation in sports or other activities can be important providers of PCEs for children who might not otherwise be able to afford them.
Strengths and Weaknesses
This study does have limitations, with caregivers more likely to report socially desirable events, such as PCEs, and less likely to report undesirable events such as parenting stress. The PCEs examined are also not comprehensive, as some cultures and communities may have more relevant or additional PCEs to be measured. The survey itself, the NSCH, is limited by its use of address-based sampling, which may exclude more vulnerable families, such as homeless or transient families. Finally, the measure of parenting stress is limited to the definition used by the NSCH. The NSCH creates the parenting stress measure as a composite dichotomous score, rather than sharing the results of this score as a continuous variable. Therefore, this is a limitation of the NSCH’s creation of this variable.
Scales that include both positive and negative parts of parenting stress, such as the Parental Stress Scale (Berry & Jones, 1995) or the Parenting Stress Index-Short Form, were not used (Abdin, 1995). The NSCH parenting stress is also assessed only in terms of one child in a family and may not reflect a family’s full experience of parenting stress. This study also reflects some data collected in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, which could have influenced several of the covariates and outcomes measured. For example, there could have been less participation in sports activities.
The strengths of this study are three-fold: first, this study used the most current version of a large and nationally representative data set to provide important evidence on the role of parenting stress on PCEs. Second, to our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the relationship between parenting stress and PCEs, allowing community, state, and federal-level stakeholders to develop informed strategies in the efforts for supporting healthy families and children. Third, we were able to account for characteristics of the child and household in controlling for covariates.
Conclusion
Positive childhood experiences (PCEs) are important contributors to healthy childhood development and toward building personal resilience, and may mitigate effects of ACEs. This study used a large, nationally representative data set to examine the association between parenting stress and children’s exposure to PCEs. Results revealed an association between high parental stress and low exposure to PCEs. These findings suggest that programs that provide parents with support and resources to manage stress, as well as programs that raise awareness and increase the availability and access to PCE opportunities for children are important to their overall and long-term well-being.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethics Approval
The Institutional Review Board at the University of South Carolina approved this research as exempt.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, 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 changes were made. 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/4.0/.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
