See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/321512078

Tips for Developing a Successful Family Research

Proposal

Article  in  Journal of Family Nursing · November 2017

DOI: 10.1177/1074840717743248

CITATION READS

1 249

2 authors:

Kathleen Knafl Marcia Van Riper

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
206 PUBLICATIONS   7,789 CITATIONS    68 PUBLICATIONS   943 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

We are doing a large cross-cultural study concerning adaptation and resilience in families of individuals with
Down syndrome. We followed the process you and your colleagues outlines in a number of other papers, but
we would also like to read and cite this paper. View project

Life TransitionTtheory View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Marcia Van Riper on 10 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

743248
research-article2017
JFNXXX10.1177/1074840717743248Journal of Family NursingKnafl and Van Riper

Article
Journal of Family Nursing
2017, Vol. 23(4) 450­–460
Tips for Developing © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
a Successful Family sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1074840717743248
https://doi.org/10.1177/1074840717743248
Research Proposal journals.sagepub.com/home/jfn

Kathleen Knafl, PhD, FAAN1

and Marcia Van Riper, PhD, RN, FAAN1

Abstract
Based on the authors’ experiences conducting family research using varied
methodological and conceptual approaches, the intent of this article is to
offer practical advice for developing a successful research proposal that
builds on existing work and makes a compelling case for the investigator’s
family focus, study design, and analytic approach. The article highlights key
challenges unique to family research and offers suggestions and strategies for
addressing the challenges.

Keywords
family research, family-related research, family measures, data analysis

Family research has a great deal in common with all other research. Much of
established practice related to design, measurement, and analysis applies to
family research. Nonetheless, there are aspects of family research that set it
apart from research in other areas and present family researchers with unique
challenges. The intent of this brief article is to highlight those challenges and
offer “tips” for developing a successful research proposal. Although directed
to proposal development for those seeking funding for their research, we
believe the tips also are applicable to students proposing a family focused

1University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA

Corresponding Author:
Kathleen Knafl, Frances Hill Fox Distinguished Professor, School of Nursing, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 408 Carrington Hall, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
Email: kknafl@email.unc.edu
Knafl and Van Riper 451

thesis or dissertation. The tips are based on our experiences as family

researchers. We have a shared interest in family response to childhood illness
and disability, but our methodological and conceptual expertise, though com-
plementary, differs. We have been colleagues for the almost 30 years, work-
ing at the same university for the past 10 years. These tips are the outcome of
many lively conversations with each other, our colleagues, and students about
family research.

Tip #1: Make a Compelling Case for Taking a

Family Focus
Whether developing an application for funding or a dissertation proposal, a
key aspect of convincing others of the importance of the proposed study is to
address how expected study outcomes will advance knowledge, contribute to
better health outcomes, and fit with the priorities of the funding source. As
family researchers, we also need to make a compelling case for taking a fam-
ily focus. For those of us engaged in family research, the need for a family
focus often seems obvious. We are interested in topics such as quality of life
in children with chronic conditions, decision making about genetic testing
options, or end-of-life care for persons with Alzheimer’s disease and recog-
nize that furthering knowledge in these areas requires understanding the fam-
ily context in which childhood chronic illness, decision making, and
caregiving occurs. Nonetheless, what seems obvious to us may not be so to
manuscript and proposal reviewers. Strategies for making a compelling case
for taking a family perspective include linking family variables such as con-
flict or cohesion to the health of individual family members or arguing how
strengthening family processes such as communication or problem-solving
will contribute to better health outcomes and/or reduced health care costs. It
is especially helpful to have examples of proposals from family researchers
who have a successful track record in making the case for the importance of
their work and to review their work with an eye to how they are making the
case for family; we suggest contacting colleagues for examples of successful
proposals they have written. Our experience has been that family researchers,
especially those in nursing, are exceptionally willing to share work and words
of wisdom with others who are committed to family research.

Tip #2: Do Your Homework

In addition to making a compelling case for taking a family focus, family
researchers need to situate their work in a broader area of inquiry. Family
research is a wide-ranging field of study that spans a diverse array of topics,
452 Journal of Family Nursing 23(4)

conceptual frameworks, research designs, and analytic approaches. Making a

compelling case for taking a family focus requires situating your proposed
study in a specific area of inquiry (e.g., palliative care, symptom manage-
ment, health care communication) and specifying how the proposed study
will both build on and extend knowledge in the field. A useful strategy for
accomplishing this is to complete a scoping study examining the nature of
research completed in a particular area of interest. As described by
Whittemore, Chao, Jang, Minges, and Park (2014), the intent of a scoping
study is “to map the key concepts and evidence of a particular phenomenon”
(p. 455). A type of synthesis research, scoping studies delineate what has
been studied and provide a systematic approach to identifying the types of
research questions asked as well as dominate research designs and concep-
tual underpinnings. Guidelines exist for conducting scoping reviews (Arksey
& O’Malley, 2005; Levac, Colquhoun, & O’Brien, 2010), and our experience
has been that they can be an effective strategy for strengthening the case
being made for the unique contribution of the proposed study. Effective use
of a scoping study entails not only mapping the territory but identifying what
is yet to be mapped. For example, in their review of research reporting strate-
gies to support transitions from hospital to home for children with medical
complexity, Breneol, Belliveau, Cassidy, and Curran (2017) identified inter-
ventions types, frameworks, models, and programs, drawing conclusions
about conceptual ambiguity related to the definition of medical complexity
and likely avenues for future research. Scoping reviews such as this can con-
tribute to the refinement of research aims and convince reviewers that the
proposed study is grounded in a thorough and thoughtful review of the
literature.

Tip #3: Clarify Your Family Focus

Family researchers also need to address how family is positioned in the pro-
posed study, and the study aims or research questions being addressed should
reflect that focus. Feetham (1991) made a distinction between family and
family-related research noting that family-related research addresses family
roles and relationships and family research addresses the family system as a
whole. She maintained that “family-related and family research together con-
stitute research of families” (Feetham, 1991, p. 55). Family research also can
be differentiated by the positioning of family as a primary or contextual area
of interest. In some studies, family is the primary focus of interest; the inves-
tigator’s intent is to describe, explain, or change some aspect of family func-
tioning or relationships. For example, in their analysis of parental relationships
in stepfamilies after a child was diagnosed with cancer, Kelly and Ganong
Knafl and Van Riper 453

(2011) described how shifting family boundaries created instability in step-

families. In other studies, family is positioned as an important contextual
variable or factor, one of many influences related to particular area of interest
as in Kamibeppu and colleagues’ (2015) study of the contribution of family
functioning to posttraumatic stress symptoms in adolescents and young adult
cancer survivors. As reflected in these two examples, the investigator’s fam-
ily focus should be clearly evident in the research aims. The intent of Kelly
and Ganong’s analysis was to examine the impact of the cancer diagnosis on
parental relationships in stepfamilies; whereas Kamibeppu and colleagues
sought to identify variables, including family functioning, associated with
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in cancer survivors. Both approaches to
positioning family in research contribute to knowledge development. By
examining how family variables effect or mediate important health outcomes
(e.g., condition control, quality of life), we develop a more precise under-
standing of the web of variables and experiences contributing to individual
health and health behaviors and the relative importance of family. However,
a more precise understanding of factors contributing to better family func-
tioning is essential to developing interventions aimed at strengthening and
supporting families. Clear delineation of the positioning of family further
buttresses your case for taking a family focus and can dispel reviewers’ mis-
conceptions about what framing the proposed research as a family study
entails.

Tip #4: Align Your Family Focus and Aims With

Your Conceptual Grounding
Regardless of focus, family studies typically are conceptually grounded, with
conceptual grounding ranging from a specific concept (e.g., ambiguous loss)
to a practice model (e.g., Illness Beliefs Model), a mid-range theory (e.g.,
Resiliency Model of Family Stress, Adjustment, and Adaptation), a grand
theory (e.g., symbolic interaction), or even a philosophical stance (e.g., phe-
nomenology). Investigators of well-designed studies explicitly link their
family focus to the conceptual grounding of the study. When the family sys-
tem is the primary focus of interest, it typically is appropriate to ground the
study in a family theory or concept since the investigator’s intent is to
describe, explain, or, in the case of intervention research, change something
about family. For example, it would be appropriate to conceptually ground a
study addressing questions related to family management of a chronic condi-
tion (e.g., Gibson-Young, Turner-Henson, Gerald, Vance, & Lozano, 2014) in
the Family Management Style Framework (K. A. Knafl, Deatrick, & Havill,
454 Journal of Family Nursing 23(4)

2012). However, the conceptual grounding of studies in which family is posi-

tioned as a contextual variable should reflect that focus. Ryan and Sawin’s
(2009) Individual and Family Self-Management Framework, which positions
family as one of several contextual influences on self-management, is an
example of a conceptual framework that aligns well with studies in which
family is positioned as a contextual influence.

Tip #5: Specify an Appropriate Definition of Family

Feetham and Frink (1998) argued that a benchmark of excellence in family
research is an explicit definition of family that guides the study’s sample
design. Definitions of family vary and may be based on biological, structural,
functional, or subjective criteria. There is no single “right” definition of fam-
ily, but there are appropriate and inappropriate definitions based on the inves-
tigator’s research aims or questions. For example, a biological definition
would be appropriate for a study examining bidirectional genetic and envi-
ronmental influences on parent and child behavior. However, a biological
definition of family would be wholly inappropriate in a study of grief experi-
ences in same sex couples. Particularly in cultures where there is consider-
able variation in family composition and structure, subjective definitions of
family are appropriate. An example of a subjective definition that is often
used by family researchers is the following definition, “a group of individuals
who are bound by strong emotional ties, a sense of belonging, and a passion
for being involved in one another’s lives” (Wright & Bell, 2009, p. 46). In
addition to specifying a definition of family, investigators need to provide a
sound rationale for the definition, linking it to the study’s intent. Specifying
and providing justification for one’s definition of family not only guides the
sample design, it decreases the likelihood that reviewers will raise questions
about the nature or appropriateness of the sample.

Tip #6: Select Measures That Align With Your

Family Focus and Conceptual Underpinnings
Depending on how family is positioned in the proposed study, measures may
focus on gathering data about the family system, subsystems within the fam-
ily, individual family members, or a combination of all these. There are
excellent overviews of existing measures of family functioning (Alderfer
et al., 2008; Bell, 2015; Hamilton & Carr, 2016; Sawin, 2016) as well as
measures of selected aspects of family life such as illness beliefs, parent–
child relationship, parental role performance, or marital quality (Pritchett
Knafl and Van Riper 455

et al., 2010). Selected measures should ideally be well-established measures

and reflect the underlying conceptual framework of the study. In some cases,
there are measures that have been explicitly developed based on the frame-
work. For example, a battery of psychometrically sound measures is avail-
able for assessing most of the constructs incorporated in the Resiliency Model
of Family Stress, Adjustment and Adaptation (McCubbin, Thompson, &
McCubbin, 1996). However, the Resiliency Model is an exception, and
investigators more often have to provide justification in their proposal for
why selected measures are appropriate indicators of framework constructs. In
addition to finding measures that reflect the underlying framework of your
study, you also need to consider the four Ws—(a) Who will be your partici-
pants (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity, and language), (b) What variables will you
be assessing (e.g., parental stress, family functioning, quality of life, parent–
child relationship), (c) When will you be collecting the data (e.g., soon after
the diagnosis of a health condition, during treatment, after treatment has been
completed), and (d) Where will you be collecting the data (e.g., in their
homes, by telephone, or online). Failure to consider the four Ws can be a
costly mistake in terms of time and energy. Recently, there has been growing
interest in the use of common data elements (Redeker et al., 2015). A com-
mon data element is a data element that is common to multiple data sets
across different studies (e.g., basic demographic information, family history,
patient-reported health status). Use of common data elements not only facili-
tates comparison of results across studies, but it also helps to aggregate data
more effectively.

Tip #7: Adapt the Analysis to Your Family Data

As noted by Uphold and Strickland (1989) in their widely cited article con-
cerning unit of analysis in family research, one of the continuing challenges
facing family researchers who use a quantitative approach is the choice and
use of the appropriate unit of analysis. Since many of the research questions
that are of interest to family researchers are multilevel in nature, family
researchers may choose to assess data at different levels. For example, some
variables of interest, such as parental well-being and depression, may be
assessed at the individual level, whereas other variables of interest are most
appropriately assessed at the dyadic level (e.g., parent–child communication)
and others may need to be assessed at the family level (e.g., family function-
ing). In addition, the research question for a family research study may be at
one level (e.g., family level), but the data are collected at the individual level.
Family researchers may also choose to collect data from multiple family
members, with the number of family member participants varying from one
456 Journal of Family Nursing 23(4)

family to the next. As the level of complexity increases, so does the impor-
tance of finding the “right” data analysis approach. The key is to ensure con-
gruence between the unit of interest, the unit of measurement, and the unit of
analysis. For example, if you are interested in assessing family quality of life,
you can collect data from individual family members or the family as a unit,
but the measure you use has to be a measure of family quality of life, not
individual quality of life. Finally, you need to analyze your findings in a man-
ner that takes into account the relational aspect of family data (Campbell &
Kashy, 2002; G. Knafl, Knafl, & McCorkle, 2005). In the past, family
researchers lacked the sophisticated statistical techniques needed to examine
the complexities of family life and relied on relatively simplistic methods
such as summative, mean difference, or family mean scores to describe a
family-level score (Uphold & Strickland, 1989). Fortunately, this is no longer
the case. There has been an upsurge of articles addressing the analysis of
dyadic family data (Lyons & Sayer, 2005; Maguire, 1999). In addition, a
wide variety of multivariate approaches is now available to family research-
ers, such as repeated measures analysis of variance, structural equation mod-
eling (Cook, 1994; Olsen & Kenny, 2006), linear mixed modeling (G. Knafl
et al., 2009), and the Actor–Partner Interdependence Model (Cook & Kenny,
2006; Rayens & Svavarsdottir, 2003). Therefore, one of the most important
steps you can take when writing your proposal is to include statistician with
experience analyzing family data on the research team from the outset.
Qualitative researchers who gather data from multiple family members
also are challenged to retain the integrity of the dyad or family unit during
data analysis. Well-established strategies are available for developing ana-
lytic matrices and case summaries that treat the dyad or family as the unit of
analysis (Ayres, Kavanaugh, & Knafl, 2003; Eisikovits & Koren, 2010; K. A.
Knafl & Ayres, 1996). New advances in data visualization provide additional
options for reviewing qualitative family data during analysis and represent-
ing family data in presentations and publications (Abramson & Dohan, 2015;
Docherty, Vorderstrasse, Brandon, & Johnson, 2017).

Tip #8: Seek Input From Nonfamily Researchers

The committees responsible for reviewing research proposals typically are
comprised of individuals with diverse research, and disciplinary, back-
grounds. Members are selected to ensure that the committee as a whole has
the substantive, conceptual, and methodological expertise to provide knowl-
edgeable critique of the set of proposals being reviewed. For a family
researcher, this means that individuals with little understanding of family
research as well as those with expertise in family research will likely be
Knafl and Van Riper 457

reviewing the proposal. This places investigators in the challenging position

of needing to develop a proposal that will be understood and positively
viewed by both experts and novices in family research. The best strategy for
accomplishing this is to seek critique from both prior to submitting the pro-
posal. Given the complexity and unique challenges of family research, it is
increasingly a team endeavor and members of the team whose expertise is in
other areas (e.g., statistics, condition being studied) can help ensure that all
aspects of the proposal reflect the current state of knowledge.
Presubmission reviewers who are not members of the research team but
with expertise and experience in the kind of family research you are propos-
ing can provide suggestions for strengthening your rationale for taking a fam-
ily focus as well as the overall design of the study. They also can point out
conceptual and methodological flaws and inconsistencies and shortcomings
related to the clarity of the presentation. On the contrary, colleagues with lit-
tle understanding of family research are well-positioned to raise questions
that highlight “blind spots” in the proposal and underlying assumptions that
need further elaboration. Nonfamily researchers may have unwarranted
assumptions about the nature of family research. For example, reviewers may
assume that to qualify as family research, multiple family members need to
be included in the sample. Although collecting data from multiple family
members can be a notable strength of a study, it is the research aims and not
the sample that differentiate family from nonfamily research. Because
reviewers also may be unfamiliar with the “family-friendly” analysis tech-
niques being used, the proposal may need to include a more detailed discus-
sion and justification of the analytic approach. There are various options for
seeking critical review prior to submission. We think the most effective
approach is to convene a formal meeting where the research team and invited
reviewers can discuss aspects of the proposal that warrant further develop-
ment and identify strategies for strengthening the proposal.
We would like to conclude by reminding readers that the International
Family Nursing Association (http://internationalfamilynursing.org/) is an
excellent resource for family researchers. Available resources include links to
ongoing projects and an extensive research bibliography.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
458 Journal of Family Nursing 23(4)

References
Abramson, C., & Dohan, D. (2015). Beyond text: Using arrays to present and ana-
lyze ethnographic data. Sociological Methods, 45, 272-319. doi:10.1177/
0081175015578740
Alderfer, M. A., Fiese, B. H., Gold, J. I., Cutuli, J. J., Holmbeck, G. N., Goldbeck,
L., . . . Patterson, J. (2008). Evidence-based assessment in pediatric psychology:
Family measures. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 33, 1046-1061. doi:10.1093/
jpepsy/jsm083
Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological
framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8, 19-32.
doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616
Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. (2003). Within-case and across-case
approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 871-
883. doi:10.1177/1049732303013006008
Bell, J. M. (2015, August 7). Family nursing research instruments developed by fam-
ily nurses [Web Log Post]. Retrieved from http://janicembell.com/2015/08/fam-
ily-nursing-research-instruments-developed-by-family-nurses/
Breneol, S., Belliveau, J., Cassidy, C., & Curran, J. (2017). Strategies to support
transitions from home to hospital for children with medical complexity: A scop-
ing review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 72, 91-104. doi:10.1016/j.
ijnurstu.2017.04.011
Campbell, L., & Kashy, D. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects
for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user-friendly guide. Personal
Relationships, 9, 327-342. doi:10.1111/1475-6811.00023
Cook, W. (1994). A structural equation model of dyadic relationships within the
family system. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 500-509.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.500
Cook, W., & Kenny, D. (2006). Examining the validity of self-report assessments
of family functioning: A question of the level of analysis. Journal of Family
Psychology, 20, 209-216. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.20.2.209
Docherty, S., Vorderstrasse, A., Brandon, D., & Johnson, C. (2017). Visualization of
multidimensional data in nursing science. Western Journal of Nursing, 39, 112-
126. doi:10.1177/0193945916672448
Eisikovits, Z., & Koren, C. (2010). Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic inter-
view analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 20, 1642-1655. doi:10.1177/
1049732310376520
Feetham, S. (1991). Conceptual and methodological issues in research of families. In
A. Whall & J. Fawcett (Eds.), Family theory development in nursing: State of the
science and art (pp. 55-68). Philadelphia, PA: F.A. Davis.
Feetham, S., & Frink, B. (1998). Issues in health services research: Children and fami-
lies. In M. Broome, K. Knafl, K. Pridham & S. Feetham (Eds.), Handbook of chil-
dren and families in health and illness (pp. 280-297). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Gibson-Young, L., Turner-Henson, A., Gerald, L., Vance, D., & Lozano, D. (2014).
The relationships among family management behaviors and asthma morbidity in
Knafl and Van Riper 459

maternal caregivers of children with asthma. Journal of Family Nursing, 20, 442-
461. doi:10.1177/1074840714552845
Hamilton, E., & Carr, A. (2016). Systematic review of self-report family assessment
measures. Family Process, 55, 16-30. doi:10.1111/famp.12200
Kamibeppu, K., Murayama, S., Ozono, S., Sakamoto, N., Iwai, T., Asami, K., . . .
Ishida, Y. (2015). Predictors of posttraumatic stress symptoms among adolescent
and young adult survivors of childhood cancer: Importance of monitoring survi-
vors’ experiences of family functioning. Journal of Family Nursing, 21, 529-550.
doi:10.1177/1074840715606247
Kelly, K., & Ganong, L. (2011). Shifting family boundaries in after the diag-
nosis of cancer in stepfamilies. Journal of Family Nursing, 17, 105-132.
doi:10.1177/1074840710397365
Knafl, K. A., & Ayres, L. (1996). Managing large qualitative data sets in family research.
Journal of Family Nursing, 2, 350-364. doi:10.1177/107484079600200402
Knafl, K. A., Deatrick, J., & Havill, N. (2012). Continued development of the
Family Management Style Framework. Journal of Family Nursing, 18, 11-34.
doi:10.1177/1074840711427294
Knafl, G., Dixon, J., O’Malley, J., Grey, M., Deatrick, J., Gallo, A., & Knafl, K.
A. (2009). Analysis of cross-sectional univariate measurements for family
dyads using linear mixed modeling. Journal of Family Nursing, 15, 130-151.
doi:10.1177/1074840709331641
Knafl, G., Knafl, K. A., & McCorkle, R. (2005). Mixed models incorporating intra-
familial correlation through spatial autoregression. Research in Nursing &
Health, 28, 348-356. doi:10.1002/nur.20082
Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., & O’Brien, K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the meth-
odology. Implementation Science, 5, Article 69. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-69
Lyons, K., & Sayer, A. (2005). Longitudinal dyad models in family research. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 67, 1048-1060. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00193.x
Maguire, M. (1999). Treating the dyad as the unit of analysis: A primer on three analytic
approaches. Journal of Marriage and Family, 61, 213-233. doi:10.2307/353895
McCubbin, H. I., Thompson, A. I., & McCubbin, M. A. (1996). Family assess-
ment: Resiliency, coping and adaptation: Inventories for research and practice.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
Olsen, J., & Kenny, D. (2006). Structural equation modeling with interchangeable
dyads. Psychological Methods, 11, 127-141. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.127
Pritchett, R., Kemp, J., Wilson, P., Minnis, H., Bryce, G., & Gillberg, C. (2010).
Quick, simple measures for use in clinical practice and research: A systematic
review. Family Practice, 28, 172-187. doi:10.1093/fampra/cmq080
Rayens, M., & Svavarsdottir, E. (2003). A new methodological approach in nurs-
ing research: Actor, partner, and interaction effect model for family outcomes.
Research in Nursing & Health, 26, 409-419. doi:10.1002/nur.10100
Redeker, N., Anderson, R., Bakken, S., Corwin, E., Docherty, S., Dorsey, S., . . .
Grady, P. (2015). Advancing symptom science through use of common data ele-
ments. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 47, 377-388. doi: 10.1111/jnu.12155
460 Journal of Family Nursing 23(4)

Ryan, P., & Sawin, K. J. (2009). The individual and family self-management the-
ory: Background and perspectives on context, process, and outcomes. Nursing
Outlook, 57, 217-225. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2008.10.004
Sawin, K. (2016). Measurement in family nursing: Established instruments and
new directions [Guest Editorial]. Journal of Family Nursing, 22, 287-297.
doi:10.1177/1074840716656038
Uphold, C., & Strickland, O. (1989). Issues related to the unit of analysis in
family research. Western Journal of Nursing, 11, 405-417. doi:10.1177/
019394598901100403
Whittemore, R., Chao, A., Jang, M., Minges, K. E., & Park, C. (2014). Methods for
knowledge synthesis: An overview. Heart & Lung, 43, 453-461. doi:10.1016/j.
hrtlng.2014.05.014
Wright, L. M., & Bell, J. M. (2009). Beliefs and illness: A model for healing. Calgary,
Alberta, Canada: 4th Floor Press.

Author Biographies
Kathleen Knafl, PhD, FAAN, is the Frances Hill Fox Distinguished Professor,
School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. Her current research focuses on family management of childhood chronic
conditions, including the development of the Family Management Style Framework
and the Family Management Measure (FaMM). She is on the editorial board of the
Journal of Family Nursing and the Board of Directors of the International Family
Nursing Association. Her recent publications include “The Nature of Family
Engagement in Interventions for Children With Chronic Conditions” in Western
Journal of Nursing Research (2017, with N. Havill, J. Leeman, L. Fleming, J.
Crandell, & M. Sandelowski), “Family Functioning and the Well-Being of Children
With Chronic Conditions: A Meta-Analysis” in Research in Nursing & Health (2016,
with J. Leeman, J. Crandell, A. Lee, J. Bai, & M. Sandelowski), and “Family Synthesis
Research: Possibilities and Challenges [Guest Editorial]” in Journal of Family
Nursing (2015).
Marcia Van Riper, PhD, RN, FAAN, is a professor at the School of Nursing,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Her current
research and clinical interests include the family experience of being tested for and
living with a genetic condition, with special emphasis on families of individuals with
Down syndrome. She is on the editorial board of the Journal of Family Nursing and
was the first president of the International Family Nursing Association. Her recent
publications include “How the Child’s Gender Matters for Families Having a Child
With Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia” in Journal of Family Nursing (2017, with L.
Fleming & K. Knafl), “Adaptation in Families of Children With Down Syndrome in
East Asian Countries: An Integrative Review” in Journal of Advanced Nursing (2017,
with H. Choi), and “Parental Management of Adrenal Crisis in Families Having a
Child With Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia” in Journal for Specialists in Pediatric
Nursing (2017, with L. Fleming, K. Knafl, & G. Knafl).

View publication stats