4.4 Article

Maltreatment in Childhood and Adolescence Results From a Survey of a Representative Sample of the German Population

期刊

DEUTSCHES ARZTEBLATT INTERNATIONAL
卷 108, 期 17, 页码 287-U5

出版社

DEUTSCHER AERZTE-VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.2011.0287

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: There are no up-to-date, representative studies on the frequency of maltreatment (abuse or neglect) among children and adolescents in Germany. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, standardized questionnaires were administered to persons aged 14 and older in a representative sample of the German population. Statistics on maltreatment in childhood and adolescence were collected with the German version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire. Regression analysis was used to detect potential associations of maltreatment with demographic variables including sex, age, place of birth, and social class. Results: 2504 of the 4455 persons contacted (56%) completed the study. Severe emotional abuse in childhood and/or adolescence was reported by 1.6% of persons in the overall sample, severe physical abuse by 2.8%, and severe sexual abuse by 1.9%. Severe emotional neglect was reported by 6.6% and severe physical neglect by 10.8%. Female sex was a predictor for severe sexual abuse, while belonging to a low or middle social stratum was a predictor for severe physical abuse and neglect. Being older at the time of the survey was a predictor for severe physical neglect. All types of maltreatment were significantly correlated with each other (p<0.001). Conclusion: The frequencies of various types of abuse and neglect of children and adolescents that were retrospectively determined in this up-to-date study by questionnaire of a representative sample of the German population, and the correlations between them, correspond to those found in a German population-based study in 1995 and in recent American studies.

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

4.4
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