Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Poster presentation
  • Open Access

The challenges of estimating the prevalence of child maltreatment

  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1,
  • 1 and
  • 1
Trials201516(Suppl 2):P166

https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-P166

Published: 16 November 2015

Keywords

  • Gold
  • Study Participant
  • Prevalence Rate
  • Diagnostic Test
  • Child Maltreatment

Aims

Counting a condition that has no gold standard diagnostic test such as child maltreatment presents challenges. This literature review aims to review both formally collected statistics from agencies in the UK, and studies using various methodologies to capture prevalence rates in the UK and worldwide.

Methods

PubMed, Ovid SP and grey literature from the NSPCC, UNICEF, The UK Government, and WHO were reviewed from 1989 to 2014. A ‘snowballing’ technique was used to identify additional studies. The literature review focused on the various ways maltreatment data are collected in the UK from official statistics, to the variation found in self-reported prevalence of maltreatment between studies worldwide, and how methodological differences may explain differences found in the quoted prevalence figures.

Results

Official statistics of maltreatment in the UK are only a portion of the true cases. Self-reported prevalence rates are also used to collect data, however, rates vary between studies. Studies conducted in the UK report that between 0.8% to 25% of children have a lifetime prevalence rate of maltreatment (sexual, physical, and emotional abuse, and neglect), studies conducted worldwide showed even greater variation of between 0.2% and 77%.

Discussion

Official statistics on maltreatment include only the tip of the iceberg of true cases. Self-report studies can also be used to estimate maltreatment, however, prevalence rates differ vastly between studies, this is likely due to methodological differences, which include the data source, the study participants, and the definition used of maltreatment.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK

Copyright

© Moody et al. 2015

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate. Please note that comments may be removed without notice if they are flagged by another user or do not comply with our community guidelines.

Advertisement