Suitability of Measurement Tools for Assessing the Prevalence of Child Domestic Work: A Rapid Systematic Review

Abstract

Child domestic work (CDW) is a hidden form of child labour. Globally, there were an estimated 17.2 million CDWs aged 5–17 in 2012, but there has been little critical analysis of methods and survey instruments used to capture prevalence of CDW. This rapid systematic review identified and critically reviewed the measurement tools used to estimate CDWs in Low- and Middle-Income Countries, following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO registration: CRD42019148702). Fourteen studies were included. In nationally representative surveys, CDW prevalence ranged from 17% among 13–24-year-old females in Haiti to 2% of children aged 10–17 in Brazil. Two good quality studies and one good quality measurement tool were identified. CDW prevalence was assessed using occupation-based methods (n = 9/14), household roster (n = 7) and industry methods (n = 4). Six studies combined approaches. Four studies included task-based questions; one study used this method to formally calculate prevalence. The task-based study estimated 30,000 more CDWs compared to other methods. CDWs are probably being undercounted, based on current standard measurement approaches. We recommend use of more sensitive, task-based methods for inclusion in household surveys. The cognitive and pilot testing of newly developed task-based questions is essential to ensure comprehension. In analyses, researchers should consider CDWs who may be disguised as distant or non-relatives.

Evaluations of Interventions with Child Domestic Workers: A Rapid Systematic Review

“…The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database of systematic reviews, registration number CRD42019148702 [ 33 ]. The protocol search strategy and search terms covered four rapid and scoping systematic reviews on CDWs and employers (the population of interest) and focused on health-, education-, and employer-focused interventions with CDWs, as elaborated elsewhere [ 34 ]. A librarian from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine supported the development of search concepts and terms and searched an overarching set of databases (see Supplementary File S1 ), which included Web of Science, EMBASE, Global Health, MEDLINE, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, and Econlit from inception to 4 June 2019.…”

“…At the title and abstract screening stage, as elaborated elsewhere [ 34 ], for all four CDW-related reviews, studies were considered eligible if they specifically targeted or included: (1) CDWs (up to 18 years old) and young adult domestic workers (18–25 years old) or employers of CDWs; (2) either occupational outcomes, health, education outcomes, risks or abuses, CDW prevalence, economic outcomes, or outcomes related to employer attitudes or behaviour. Observational studies and intervention evaluations reporting on relevant outcomes for each review were eligible.…”

“…In the initial screen as described in the overarching protocol covering four reviews [ 34 ], two reviewers (C.W.C. and N.S.P.)…”

“…The same two reviewers then used the overarching inclusion criteria to independently assess the potential eligibility of full text papers. Please see Pocock (2021) for more detail [ 34 ].…”

“…Fifty per cent of each reviewer’s allocation was then independently appraised by the other to ensure that the quality criteria were being applied consistently. No significant disagreements were found [ 34 ]. N.K.…”