Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37133265›Full record

ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2021

Interventions that address institutional child maltreatment: An evidence and gap map.

Meghan Finch, Rebecca Featherston, Sangita Chakraborty, Ludvig Bjørndal, Robyn Mildon, Bianca Albers, Caroline Fiennes, David J A Taylor, Rebecca Schachtman, Taoran Yang and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Meghan FinchNational Centre for Implementation Science Newcastle University Wallsend New South Wales Australia.
Rebecca FeatherstonDepartment of Social Work, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine Nursing & Health Sciences Monash University Caulfield Victoria Australia.
Sangita ChakrabortyCentre for Evidence and Implementation Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Ludvig BjørndalCentre for Evidence and Implementation Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Robyn MildonCentre for Evidence and Implementation Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Bianca AlbersCentre for Evidence and Implementation Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Caroline FiennesGiving Evidence Cornwall UK.
David J A TaylorCentre for Evidence and Implementation Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Rebecca SchachtmanCentre for Evidence and Implementation Melbourne Victoria Australia.
Taoran YangDepartment of Social Work, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine Nursing & Health Sciences Monash University Caulfield Victoria Australia.
Aron ShlonskyDepartment of Social Work, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Faculty of Medicine Nursing & Health Sciences Monash University Caulfield Victoria Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Child maltreatment has serious short and long-term negative impacts for those experiencing it. Child maltreatment occurring in institutional settings has recently received substantial attention. However, evidence about the effectiveness of interventions that prevent, disclose, respond to, or treat maltreatment that has occurred in these environments is fragmented and can be difficult to access. This evidence and gap map (EGM) collates this research evidence. It was developed as a resource for stakeholders operating in the child health, welfare and protection sectors, including practitioners, organisational leaders, policy developers and researchers, wanting to access high quality evidence on interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment. Objectives: The objectives of this EGM were twofold: (a) To provide a structured and accessible collection of existing evidence from finalised and ongoing overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews and effectiveness studies of interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment-for those who work to fund, develop, implement and evaluate interventions aimed at ensuring children's safety in institutional settings; (b) to identify gaps in the available evidence on interventions addressing institutional child maltreatment-thereby helping to inform the research agendas of funders and other organisations. Search Methods: A comprehensive search strategy identified relevant studies from published and grey literature, comprising: (1) 10 electronic academic databases; (2) five trial and systematic review registries; (3) nine organisational websites; (4) websites and reference lists of inquiry reports associated with seven international inquiries into child abuse and (4) the lists of included studies within systematic reviews identified by the search strategy. Members of this EGM's Subject Matter Experts group were also invited to forward relevant unpublished studies or grey literature. Selection Criteria: The selection criteria were developed to identify finalised and ongoing overviews of reviews, systematic reviews and primary studies that reported on the effectiveness of interventions addressing child maltreatment (including sexual abuse, physical abuse, neglect and emotional abuse) within institutional settings. Eligible effectiveness study designs included: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and quasi-experimental studies. Reviews were eligible if they reported a systematic literature search strategy. Data Collection and Analysis: All screening, data extraction, coding and critical appraisals were undertaken by two or more reviewers working independently, with discrepancies resolved via consensus or by a third reviewer. The titles and abstracts of studies identified by the search strategy were screened, and each full text of potentially relevant studies was further assessed for inclusion. Key data were extracted from all included studies and reviews. This included information about: publication details (e.g., year, author, country), inclusion/exclusion criteria (for reviews), study design, institutional setting, target population, type of maltreatment, intervention type and outcomes. Critical appraisal of included systematic reviews was achieved using the AMSTAR 2 tool, and completed RCTs were assessed using the updated Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Main Results: Authors' Conclusions: This EGM has highlighted a substantial need for more high quality studies that evaluate interventions across a broader range of institutional contexts and maltreatment types. The current evidence base does not represent countries with large populations and the greatest incidence of child maltreatment. Few studies focussed on perpetrators or the organisational environment. Further evidence gaps were identified for interventions relating to disclosure, organisational responses and treatment, and few studies assessed interventions targeting perpetrators' maltreatment behaviours, recidivism or desistence. Future studies should also include measure of programme implementation.

Identifiers

PMID37133265
PMCPMC8356353

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.