Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25798029›Full record

ArticleContemporary family therapy

Where is the Child in Family Therapy Service After Family Violence? A Study from the Norwegian Family Protection Service.

Anna Margrete Flåm, Bjørn Helge Handegård

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Contemporary family therapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Anna Margrete FlåmInstitute of Psychology, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Huginbakken 32, 9037 Tromsö, Norway.
Bjørn Helge HandegårdRKBU - North, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsö, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Extensive documentation on consequences of family violence laid the ground for a politically decided mandate for the Norwegian Family Protection Service (FPS) to prioritize families with children and violence. This study explores the practice of one of the country's larger FPS offices following this mandate and its kick-off start. Data from all cases in 1 year with families with children and violence were gathered (106) as to what were cases referred, services provided, main cross-points, dilemmas, and challenges. Descriptive statistical analyses were utilized and qualitative analysis conducted. The study shows success in supplying a direct, much used route both for private persons and main collaborative agencies, although all abusers need others as promoters for change. The service succeeds to pioneer brief treatment combined with taking a stand against violence. However, while services are provided fairly quickly when violence is reported, several changes are called for: A more violence-sensitive intake procedure, stronger cooperation with specialty mental health service and primary health service, extended use of assessment tools and outcome measures. Given the nature of violence, particularly follow up measures are required. However, first and foremost, the study calls for a better inclusion of the child. Despite mandated priority, a major neglect of children takes place. In line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Norwegian Family Protection Services in a country complying with this Convention is obliged to take the child more successfully into account in its own right. Future efforts are required to safeguard child-focused services.

Indexed as

Child maltreatmentChild therapyDomestic violenceFamily therapyFamily violenceUN Convention on the Rights of the Child

Identifiers

PMID25798029
PMCPMC4359709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.