Mendoza-Solís LA, Soler-Huerta E, Sainz-Vázquez L, Gil-Alfaro I, Mendoza-Sánchez HF, Pérez-Hernández C

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 27-32
PDF size: 101.90 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: Our aim was to determine the family dynamics factors related with family functionality in a group of families at the primary healthcare level. Materials and Methods: We carried out a descriptive, retrospective, and transversal study by means of family health diagnostic studies, conjugal sub-system evaluation, and the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES III) applied to families enrolled at the Mexican Institute of Social Security’s (IMSS) Family Medicine Unit 66 in Xalapa, Veracruz, Mexico, from March 2003 to December 2004. Comparative analysis of the results was carried out by means of χ² test. Results: We included 103 Family Health diagnoses; according to family typology, 82% families were integrated, 82% were nuclear, 51% were traditional, 86% were urban dwellers, and 75% of families were employed. With respect to family dynamics, 65% of families presented direct communication, 64%, clearly defined limits, and 48%, reciprocal authority with authority. According to conjugal sub-system evaluation, we found that 52% were functional couples, 39% were moderately dysfunctional couples, and 9% were severely dysfunctional couples. FACES III results revealed that 43% of families fell with the medium range, 41% were balanced families, and 16% were extreme families. Direct communication predominated in balanced families, while direct communication was masked in medium-range families, and displaced in extreme families (p = 0.0001). With regard to limits, these were clear in balanced families, diffuse in medium-range families, and rigid in extreme families (p = 0.00251). Conclusions: Direct communication and clear limits predominate in functional and balanced families.

REFERENCES

1. Gómez Clavelina FJ. Diagnóstico de Salud Familiar. En Irigoyen-Coria A, Gómez-Clavelina FJ. Fundamentos de Medicina Familiar. 7^a ed. México: Medicina Familiar Mexicana. 2000. p. 103-140.

2. Gómez-Clavelina FJ, Irigoyen-Coria A, Ponce-Rosas ER. Selección y análisis de instrumentos para evaluación de la estructura y funcionalidad familiar. Arch Med Fam 1999; 1 (2):45-57.

3. Ponce-Rosas R, Gómez-Clavelina FJ, Irigoyen-Coria A, Terán-Trujillo M, Hernández-Gómez A, y cols. Análisis de la confiabilidad de FACES III (versión en español). Aten. Primaria 1999;23(8)579-484.

4. Gómez-Clavelina FJ, Irigoyen-Coria A, Ponce-Rosas R, Mazón-Ramírez J, Dickinson-Bannack E, Sánchez-González E y cols. Versión al español y adaptación transcultural del FACES III. Arch Med Fam 1999;1(3):73-79.

5. Chávez-Aguilar V, Velasco-Orellana O. Disfunciones familiares del subsistema conyugal. Criterios para su evaluación. Rev. Med. IMSS(Mex)1994;32: 39-43.

6. Huerta-Martínez N, Valadés-Rivas B, Sánchez-Escobar L. Frecuencia de disfunción familiar en una clínica de medicina familiar del ISSSTE en la ciudad de México. Arch.Med.Fam 2001;3(4):95-98.

7. Florenzzano UR. La familia como factor de riesgo, Adolescentes y familia en Chile. Creces 1992;7: 24-34.

8. Vázquez-Nava F, Santos-Díaz A, Martínez-Burnes J. El paciente asmático y su dinámica familiar. Revista Alergia México 2003;L(6):214-219.

9. Louro-Bernal Isabel. La familia en la determinación de la salud, Rev. Cubana Salud Pública 2003; 29(1):48-51.

10. Monroy-Caballero C, Boschetti-Fentanes B, Irigoyen-Coria A. El estrés ¿ Un problema en la práctica del médico familiar ? Arch.Med.Fam 2001; 3(4):91-93.

11. Méndez-Espinosa E, Ramírez-Lumbreras C, Riquelme-Heras H. Crisis familiares accidentales y enfermedad psicosomática. Arch.Med.Fam 2001; 3(4) 105-108.

12. Gómez-Clavelina FJ, Ponce-Rosas ER, Irigoyen-Coria A. FACES III: alcances y limitaciones. Aten Fam 2005;12(1):10-11.