Navigating and negotiating meanings of child abuse and neglect: Sociocultural contexts shaping Australian nurses’ perceptions

Abstract

Nurses who work with children have the opportunity to make a difference by identifying and responding to child abuse and neglect. Little is known about the ways that nurses define, assess and respond to child abuse and neglect and how this subsequently affects children. This paper reports one of four themes identified through inductive analysis of a qualitative study exploring nurses’ perceptions and experiences of keeping children safe from abuse and neglect. The aim of this paper was to report on how nurses understand and interpret child abuse, is found to be shaped by their own sociocultural contexts. A qualitative research design underpinned by social constructionism framed the study. Data were collected in 2016 and 2017 through 21 in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews with nurses who work with children in Australia. Key findings showed that nurses working with children had difficulty defining child abuse and drew upon multiple sources to construct a working definition. In addition to drawing from official legislation and guidelines, nurses compared and contrasted the level of abuse with their own personal and professional experiences of parenting. Nurses described the challenges of making assessments when faced with cultural practices different from their own. Nurses’ descriptions of how they defined abuse showed that their assessments of child abuse and neglect were inextricably linked to their personal values and beliefs. As such, nurses were often working from their own value systems rather than consistently taking a child‐focussed approach. There was an absence of consistent and explicit critical reflection on ways that values and beliefs might shape practice at individual and system levels. We propose this is a missing aspect of child safe practice. Reflection on how personal and professional values and beliefs interact with the implementation of evidence‐informed approaches will increase nurses’ capacity to maintain a child‐focus.

Constructing a Compelling Case: Nurses' Experiences of Communicating Abuse and Neglect

“…The ways in which Australian nurses conceptualise child abuse and neglect is linked to their sociocultural contexts, and this is further discussed in Lines et al . (2019).…”

“…Thus, some perceived difficulties with 'being heard' or feeling 'disempowered, disenfranchised and disappointed' could result from varying professional conceptualisations of child abuse between nurses and CPS. The ways in which Australian nurses conceptualise child abuse and neglect is linked to their sociocultural contexts, and this is further discussed in Lines et al (2019).…”

“…Semi‐structured, in‐depth interviews lasting from 60 to 90 minutes were held face‐to‐face (n = 15), via telephone (n = 5) or through Skype (n = 2). The questions were based on an interview guide (see Lines et al ., 2019) developed from a literature review (Lines et al, 2017). Interviews were conducted by the first author from August 2016 to August 2017.…”

“…Consequently, this paper reports on the third of four themes that were identified in a qualitative study exploring nurses' perceptions and experiences of keeping children safe from abuse. The four themes from this qualitative study which were established through inductive analysis are: (1) contextualising and defining child abuse (Lines et al, 2019); (2) nurse relational skills in addressing child abuse (Lines et al, 2020a); (3) nurse experiences of communicating concerns of child abuse; and (4) nurse views around how systems and hierarchies shape their responses to abuse (Lines et al ., 2020b). This paper specifically reports on the third theme relating to nurses' perceptions and experiences of communicating their concerns to CPS and families when reporting child abuse and neglect.…”

Nurses' perceptions of systems and hierarchies shaping their responses to child abuse and neglect

“…Interviews (60–90 min) were conducted by the first author either in‐person ( n = 14), by telephone ( n = 5) or through Skype ( n = 2) based on participant location and preferences from August 2016 to August 2017. The interviews were guided by an interview guide (refer to Lines, Hutton, & Grant, In press) which was produced through a literature review (Lines, Hutton, & Grant, ). At interview 17, signs of data saturation were evident, meaning the researchers recognised that participants were reiterating similar concepts and building on previous interviews.…”