Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32499272›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Exploration of trends in the incidence and prevalence of childhood maltreatment and domestic abuse recording in UK primary care: a retrospective cohort study using 'the health improvement network' database.

Joht Singh Chandan, Krishna Margadhamane Gokhale, Caroline Bradbury-Jones, Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar, Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay, Julie Taylor

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Consequences of COVID-19 and Its Variants: Understanding the Physical, Oral, and Psychological Impact.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Joht Singh ChandanUniversity of Warwick Warwick Medical School, Coventry, UK joht.chandan@nhs.net.ORCID 0000-0002-9561-5141
Krishna Margadhamane GokhaleInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Birmingham, UK.
Caroline Bradbury-JonesSchool of Nursing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Krishnarajah Nirantharakumar *Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Birmingham, UK.
Siddhartha Bandyopadhyay *The Department of Economics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Julie Taylor *School of Nursing, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
University of Birmingham · GBBirmingham Women’s and Children’s NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesDescribe the epidemiology of childhood maltreatment and domestic abuse (in women).

designAnalysis of longitudinal records between 1 January 1995 to 31 December 2018.

settingUK primary care database: 'The Health Improvement Network' (THIN).

participants11 831 850 eligible patients from 787 contributing practices. Childhood maltreatment and domestic abuse (women only) were defined as the presence of a recorded Read code. OUTCOME MEASURES: The incidence rate (IR) and prevalence of childhood maltreatment (in children aged 0-18 years) and domestic abuse (in women aged over 18) between 1996 and 2017. An adjusted incidence rate ratio (aIRR) is given to examine the differences in IRs based on sex, ethnicity and deprivation.

resultsThe age and gender breakdown of THIN has been previously reported to be representative of the UK population, however, there is substantial missing information on deprivation quintiles (<20%) and ethnicity (approximately 50%). The IR (IR 60.1; 95% CI 54.3 to 66.0 per 100 000 child years) and prevalence (416.1; 95% CI 401.3 to 430.9 per 100 000 child population) of childhood maltreatment rose until 2017. The aIRR was greater in patients from the most deprived backgrounds (aIRR 5.14; 95% CI 4.57 to 5.77 compared with least deprived) and from an ethnic minority community (eg, black aIRR 1.25; 1.04 to 1.49 compared with white). When examining domestic abuse in women, in 2017, the IR was 34.5 (31.4 to 37.7) per 100 000 adult years and prevalence 368.7 (358.7 to 378.7) per 100 000 adult population. Similarly, the IR was highest in the lowest socioeconomic class (aIRR 2.30; 2.71 to 3.30) and in ethnic minorities (South Asian aIRR 2.14; 1.92 to 2.39 and black aIRR 1.64; 1.42 to 1.89).

conclusionDespite recent improvements in recording, there is still a substantial under-recording of maltreatment and abuse within UK primary care records, compared with currently existing sources of childhood maltreatment and domestic abuse data. Approaches must be implemented to improve recording and detection of childhood maltreatment and domestic abuse within medical records.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChildChild AbuseChild, PreschoolDatabases as TopicDomestic ViolenceFemaleHumansIncidenceInfantInfant, NewbornLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle Agedchild protectionepidemiologyprimary care

Identifiers

PMID32499272
PMCPMC7279643
OpenAlexW3033298098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.