ArticleChild abuse & neglect2022
Child abuse and neglect in Brussels during the COVID-19-lockdown.
Article in Child abuse & neglect, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is likely that the circumstances during the COVID-19-lockdown in Belgium increased the incidence and prevalence of child abuse and neglect (CAN) due to exacerbated risk factors and new COVID-19-related stressors. However, traditional reporters had less contact with children which could lead to undetected cases of CAN.
objectiveGain insight into the number and profile of CAN reports filed to the Brussels Confidential Center of Child Abuse and Neglect (CCCAN) during the COVID-19-lockdown. PARTICIPANTS AND
settingA dataset comprising 536 CAN reports from periods before (N = 442) and during the lockdown (N = 94).
methodsCharacteristics about the report, reporter, victim and his/her family, perpetrator(s) and the trajectory with the CCCAN were registered. The number and characteristics of reports during the lockdown were compared to those of reports before the lockdown.
resultsThe number of advisory questions (p = .506, d = .377) and allegations (p = .095, d = 1.206) remained unchanged. During the lockdown, the risk assessment of advisory questions was higher (p = .011, d = .280), they evolved more into social exigency investigations (p < .001, φ = .246) and were referred more often to judicial authorities (p = .010, φ = .163). Allegations were filed more often by the helpline, police and judicial authorities (p < .001, φ = .590) during the lockdown and involved more Dutch-speaking (p = .016, φ = .166) victims.
conclusionsThe number of CAN reports remained the same during the lockdown but their profile changed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.