ArticlePloS one2024
Current approaches addressing oral health practitioners' responsiveness to child abuse and neglect: A scoping review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Neglect of Children with Disabilities: A Scoping Review.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Protecting children in Aotearoa New Zealand: a review on legal and professional frameworks for oral health practitioners.Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand · 2025Review
- Youth Perspectives of Neglect Signs and Help-Seeking.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionChild abuse and neglect (CAN) poses significant risks, causing severe and long-lasting effects on a child's well-being, including physical and mental health and learning and socializing capabilities. Oral health practitioners (OHPs) uniquely position themselves to identify signs of maltreatment in the orofacial area, offer appropriate support, and collaborate with a multidisciplinary team. The literature has shown that OHPs under-report child protection concerns to a statutory child protection agency. Responding to CAN is often hindered by various factors, such as the fear of making false accusations and insufficient knowledge to detect and report potential cases. However, the literature lacks a comprehensive understanding of the strategies and interventions that can address the responsiveness of OHPs and other professionals to child protection issues. This scoping review aims to provide a broad overview and map the literature on the existing approaches to enhance the responsiveness of OHPs in child protection. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe proposed scoping review will be conducted following the JBI methodology for scoping reviews guideline and reported using the PRISMA-ScR guideline. The first exploratory search is conducted to refine the search strategy and inclusion and exclusion criteria. The second search will include MEDLINE (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Dentistry & Oral Science Source (EBSCO), Cochrane Library, and Scopus, with a date range from January 2000 to March 2023. The third search will involve reference list searching and gray literature searching in Google and Google Scholar. Government and international health organizations' websites will be searched for policies and guidelines. The review will consider studies that report the current approaches to address OHPs' responsiveness to CAN in any setting. Two reviewers will independently select sources and extract data. Any disagreements will be resolved by consensus of the research team. The extracted data will be presented in a tabulated chart with a narrative summary.
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.