Prevalence of Child Maltreatment during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Survey of Rural Hubei, China

Abstract

The impact of lockdown measures in Wuhan, China during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic on child maltreatment remains unknown. The present study attempted to estimate the prevalence of child maltreatment during this period, to identify risk factors, and the influence of child maltreatment. A representative sample of 1,062 school-aged children in rural Hubei province was surveyed. Results indicated that the prevalence of family violence, physical violence, emotional abuse and neglect during the lockdown period were 13.9, 13.7, 20.2 and 7.3 percent, respectively, and that of lifetime prevalence were 17.0, 13.9, 14.6 and 6.9 percent, respectively. And most victims did not seek official help. Boys were more likely to experience physical violence. Children from separated/divorced families tended to report more emotional abuse. Those having family members with a history of drug abuse and mental illness were more likely to experience neglect during the lockdown period. All types of child maltreatment were positively associated with self-harm behaviours. These findings highlight the importance of identifying at-risk children immediately and implementing timely intervention programmes to prevent self-harm behaviours for social workers and health professionals.

The voices of parents in child protective services: A qualitative analysis of families’ struggles with COVID-19

“…COVID-related research refers to the importance of creativity in finding solutions and flexibility in the management and operation of the child protection system (e.g., Cabiati, 2021 ; Caldwell et al, 2020 ; Sen et al, 2021 ; Toros, 2021 ; Toros & Falch-Eriksen, 2020 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ). The child welfare system has become bureaucratically preoccupied ( Ferguson, 2017 ) as a consequence of managerialism ( Munro & Turnell, 2018 ; Rogowski, 2011 ).…”

“…Children and parents in Child Protective Services (CPS) are considered the most vulnerable in this pandemic ( Bolborici, 2020 ; Fegert & Schulze, 2020 ; Frimpong-Manso et al, 2021 ; Goldberg, Brodzinsky, Singer, & Crozier, 2021 ; Goldberg, McCormick, & Virginia, 2021 ; Janssen et al, 2020 ; Langley, Ruderman, Waterman, & Franke, 2021 ; Orlando et al, 2021 ) as the majority families in CPS tend to have ongoing needs (see Caldwell et al, 2020 ). Several scholars believe that the vulnerability of children and families in need has intensified in this global crisis ( Bolborici, 2020 ; Franic & Dodig-Curkovic, 2020 ; Vilar-Compte, Pérez, Teruel, Alonso, & Pérez-Escamilla, 2020 ; Zhang, Li, Shi, Dong, & Wang, 2021 ). Crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic can exacerbate existing hardships faced by families ( Fallon et al, 2020 ).…”

Global prevalence of physical and psychological child abuse during COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…The penultimate analyses, above, yielded 10 empirical studies that met the general inclusion criteria, and Appendix 3 gives the details for these studies: author/s, publication year, study site, time frame, and the domestic violence outcome measurement. Given the short time frame that has occurred since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 11, 2020, according to the World Health Organization), all studies were published between 2020 and 2022, specifically, nine in 2021 and ( AboKresha et al, 2021 ; Augusti et al, 2021 ; Kurata et al, 2021 ; Lee et al, 2021 ; Rodriguez et al, 2021 ; Sari et al, 2021 ; Wong et al, 2021 ; Yamaoka et al, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ) one in 2022 ( Selvi, 2022 ). However, although in effect we identified 10 empirical studies, one study ( Kurata et al, 2021 ) included four studies, so that we actually used 13 empirical studies.…”

“…However, although in effect we identified 10 empirical studies, one study ( Kurata et al, 2021 ) included four studies, so that we actually used 13 empirical studies. There was wide geographic representation among the studies, with three conducted in the United States ( Kurata et al, 2021 ; Lee et al, 2021 ; Rodriguez et al, 2021 ) and the remainders in Egypt ( AboKresha et al, 2021 ), Norway ( Augusti et al, 2021 ), Netherlands ( Sari et al, 2021 ), China ( Wong et al, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ), Japan ( Kurata et al, 2021 ; Yamaoka et al, 2021 ), Indonesia ( Selvi, 2022 ), India ( Kurata et al, 2021 ), and Malaysia ( Kurata et al, 2021 ). All the studies focused on short period such as weeks or months immediately after COVID-19 to compare the effect of restrictions on child abuse, although they varied for instances in terms of random vs. nonrandom sampling; additionally, nearly all studies used online surveys, with one of those on a mobile phone.…”

“…After our quality assessment, four studies ( AboKresha et al, 2021 ; Lee et al, 2021 ; Rodriguez et al, 2021 ; Sari et al, 2021 ) earned the maximum score of six points to indicate no bias. One study ( Selvi, 2022 ) received a bias score of four points, the lowest of the ten studies, and the remainders ( Augusti et al, 2021 ; Kurata et al, 2021 ; Wong et al, 2021 ; Yamaoka et al, 2021 ; Zhang et al, 2021 ) received five points.…”