Methodological issues and practical strategies in research on child maltreatment victims' abilities and experiences as witnesses

Discrepancies in youth self-report and case file report of maltreatment and association with internalizing and externalizing symptoms

BACKGROUND

Childhood maltreatment is a potential risk factor for the later development of psychopathology (Jaffee, 2017). However, there is no gold standard for identifying victims of child maltreatment, and when multiple informants - such as case files and youth self-report - are used, these sources often disagree (Cooley & Jackson, 2022).

OBJECTIVE

The current study aimed to explore discrepancies between youth self-report and case file report of maltreatment and examine how these discrepancies related to internalizing and externalizing symptoms.

PARTICIPANTS/SETTING

Participants were 470 youth living in foster care between the ages of 8 and 18 and their caregivers.

METHODS

Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to create novel groups based on informant discrepancies.

RESULTS

Agreement between informants was in the poor-to-fair agreement range for all types of maltreatment. Latent class analysis identified a 3-class solution with significant group differences on both externalizing (Χ² (2, N = 470) = 6.16, p = 0.05) and internalizing symptoms (Χ² (2, N = 470) = 6.10, p = 0.05). Specifically, those in the "self-report only" class had significantly higher symptoms than those in the "neither informant/case file only" class for both internalizing and externalizing behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Case files and youth self-report of maltreatment are discrepant. Youth self-report of maltreatment history may be more closely linked to psychopathology than case file report of maltreatment. Researchers and practitioners should look to youth self-report rather than relying solely on case files when determining risk for psychopathology.

A scoping review of recommendations in the English language on conducting research with trauma-exposed populations since publication of the Belmont report; thematic review of existing recommendations on research with trauma-exposed populations

OBJECTIVE

To identify recommendations for conducting public health research with trauma-exposed populations.

METHODS

Researchers searched Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Open Grey, and Google Scholar for recommendations. Trauma that causes psychological impact was our exposure of interest and we excluded clinical articles on treating physical trauma. We reviewed titles and abstracts of 8,070 articles and full text of 300 articles. We analyzed recommendations with thematic analysis, generated questions from the existing pool of recommendations, and then summarized select gaps.

RESULTS

We abstracted recommendations from 145 articles in five categories: community benefit, participant benefit, safety, researcher well-being, and recommendations for conduct of trauma research.

CONCLUSIONS

Gold standards to guide the conduct of trauma-informed public health research do not yet exist. The literature suggests participation in trauma research is not inherently harmful, and current recommendations concern using research to benefit communities and participants, protecting participants and researchers from harm, and improving professional practice. As public health researchers increasingly analyze trauma as a determinant of health, gold standards for the conduct of trauma-informed public health research would be appropriate and timely.

Determining child maltreatment incidence in Saudi Arabia using the ICAST-CH: a pilot study

Studies in other countries, including countries with mandated reporting by professionals and a long history of recognition of the problem, have found child abuse to be seriously under reported. This population-based pilot study was conducted to determine the magnitude of adolescents' exposure to CAN at home, and to identify ethical and methodological challenges to conducting a survey on a culturally sensitive subject. This cross-sectional study was carried out in Al-Kharj city in 2011-2012. Through a stratified multistage cluster random sampling of schools, a sample of adolescents (15-18 years) were identified and invited to participate. The ISPCAN Child Abuse Screening Tool-Child: Home version (ICAST-CH) was used for data collection. The previous year's incidence of physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, neglect, and exposure to violence were assessed. A total of 2,043 students participated in the study (mean age, 16.6 years; 58%, female). The incidence of psychological abuse, physical abuse, exposure to violence, neglect, and sexual abuse were 74.9%, 57.5%, 50.7%, 50.2%, and 14.0%, respectively. Female participants were at higher risk for psychological and physical abuse, exposure to violence, and neglect, but not for sexual abuse. The rates and gender distribution of CAN at home differ from findings of health-based records. Our results are comparable to other regional population-based studies. Thus, population-based data are necessary to inform and guide professionals and decision makers for prevention policies and resource allocation. Insights to ethical and methodological challenges surrounding the sensitive nature of this type of study are discussed.

Data research on child abuse and neglect without informed consent? Balancing interests under Dutch law

According to the Declaration of Helsinki, participation of human subjects in medical research is only acceptable if subjects have given their consent. But in child abuse and neglect, many studies use a design in which subjects do not actively participate. Data in these studies are gathered from sources such as medical records or Child Protective Services. As long as such data are used anonymously, this does not interfere with individual privacy rights. However, some research is only possible when carried out with personally identifiable data, which could potentially be misused. In this paper, we discuss in which situations and under which conditions personal data of children may be used for a study without obtaining consent. In doing so, we make use of two recent studies, performed in our hospital, in which we encountered this issue. Both studies involved collecting personal data. After careful consideration, we decided not to ask informed consent; instead, we arranged for specific safeguards to protect the subject's and their parents' privacy as well as possible.

CONCLUSION

Altogether, we conclude that our approach fits within the Dutch legal framework and seems a reasonable solution in situations in which individual privacy rights are at odds with the public interest of child abuse and neglect research. We argue that, although, in principle, data research is only acceptable after informed consent is obtained, the law should allow that, under specific circumstances and safeguards, this requirement is put aside to make research in the field of child abuse and neglect possible.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• In principle, data research is only acceptable after informed consent is obtained.• In practice, this is not always feasible.

WHAT IS NEW

• Under specific circumstances and safeguards, the informed consent requirement can be put aside.