ArticleBMJ open2024
Systematic review of child maltreatment screening tools used by different occupational groups: a study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundChild maltreatment (CM) encompasses physical, emotional or sexual abuse, physical or emotional/psychological neglect or intimate partner (or domestic) violence and is associated with adverse cognitive, behavioural, physical and social outcomes that often continue shaping adulthood. The early and valid detection of CM is essential to initiate treatment and intervention as well as to avoid continued violence against the child. Various occupational groups, such as healthcare providers, teachers, social workers, psychotherapists and others, encounter maltreated children in their professional settings. Systematic reviews on instruments to assess suspected CM often report on retrospective measurement via caregiver's or child's self-report and are frequently limited to the health system as a setting. The purpose of this Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic review is to synthesise the evidence on psychometric properties of instruments to assess suspected CM at the presentation to a broad range of different occupational groups who work with children inside and outside the healthcare system.
methodA systematic search will be performed in Scopus, PsycInfo, Medline and Web of Science with no limit on the earliest publication until January 2022. Eligibility criteria include studies that investigate psychometric properties of instruments to assess suspected CM in children and adolescents under 18 years by a professional proxy. After the independent screening of studies by two reviewers, quality assessment and data extraction will be performed using an adaptation of the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments Risk of Bias checklist, Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology: Explanation and Elaboration report and Downs and Black checklist for measuring study quality. Screening, quality assessment and data extraction will be done using Covidence. The results will be presented in narrative form and, if adequate, a meta-analysis will be performed. DISCUSSION: This review aims to give an overview of the psychometric properties of different instruments designed to screen suspected CM by professional proxies. The results will be of interest to different occupational groups who need information about methodological quality and characteristics of instruments to make decisions about the best-suited tool for a specific purpose. Furthermore, the results of this review will support the development of novel instruments and might improve the existing ones. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval will not be required. The results of this systematic review will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022297997.
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.