4.5 Article

COVID-19: Differences in sentinel injury and child abuse reporting during a pandemic

期刊

CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT
卷 116, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.104990

关键词

COVID-19; Child maltreatment; Neglect; Pediatric emergency department

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found an increase in the incidence of child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in emotional/psychological abuse and non-medical neglect. These findings highlight the need for increased attention to children at risk for abuse and neglect.
Background and objectives: There is widespread concern that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the incidence of child maltreatment. However, reports in the scientific literature documenting rates of child maltreatment during this period are scarce. This study was designed to explore whether the incidence of child maltreatment among patients presenting to a pediatric emergency department has increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of patients of all ages presenting to a pediatric Emergency Department trauma center, who also had a child abuse report filing or a sentinel injury diagnosis related to their index visit. All such patients who presented to this institution from March through July of 2017 through 2020 were included in the study. Results: Analysis demonstrated an increase in the incidence of child maltreatment in May and June of 2020 and that there was an overall shift in distribution of types of child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a significant increase in the proportion of emotional/ psychological abuse (2.52 % before the pandemic to 7.00 % during the pandemic, p < 0.0001) and non-medical neglect (31.5%-40.0%, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: We observed an increase in specific types of child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings highlight the need for increased attention to children at risk for child abuse and neglect.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据