4.5 Article

Determinants of child maltreatment in Nepal: Results from the 2014 Nepal multiple indicator cluster survey (the 2014 NMICS)

期刊

CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 400-407

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.11.018

关键词

Child maltreatment; Physical abuse; Emotional abuse; Child labor; Nepal

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the prevalence of child maltreatment as measured by the level of physical (moderate to severe) and emotional abuse and child labor, and the associated household level determinants of child maltreatment in Nepal. We used a nationally representative data set from the fifth round of the Nepal Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (the 2014 NMICS). The main independent variables were household level characteristics. Dependent variables included child experience of moderate to severe physical abuse, emotional abuse, and child labor (domestic work and economic activities). Bivariate analyses and logistic regressions were used to examine the associations between independent and dependent variables. The results showed that nearly half of the children (49.8%) had experienced moderate physical abuse, 21.5% experienced severe physical abuse, and 77.3% experienced emotional abuse. About 27% of the children had engaged in domestic work and 46.7% in various economic activities. At bivariate level, educational level of household's head and household wealth status had shown significant statistical association with child maltreatment (p < 0.001). Results from multivariate logistic regressions showed that higher education levels and higher household wealth status protected children from moderate to severe physical abuse, emotional abuse and child labor. In general, child maltreatment is a neglected social issue in Nepal and the high rates of child maltreatment calls for mass awareness programs focusing on parents, and involving all stakeholders including governments, local, and international organizations.

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