Trend in 167 cases of minors witnessing violence: The role played by COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

BackgroundThere currently is no evidence that COVID-19 has had an impact on the rates of psychological abuses occurring when a minor witnesses interpersonal violence.AimOur aim was to describe the accesses of the last four years to the Emergency Department of a tertiary hospital (Careggi University Hospital—Florence, Italy) due to this issue and then to evaluate whether the COVID-19 has had an impact on this trend.MethodsWe collected data regarding cases of abuse in which at least a minor had reportedly witnessed the event. Medical records stored between January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2022 were analyzed, extracting sex, age and nationality of the victim; sex of the perpetrator and relationship with the victim; known previous episodes of abuse in the medical history of the victim; setting of the abuse (domestic vs. non-domestic); type of abuse (physical, psychological, sexual); whether the perpetrator was under the influence of alcohol/drugs; whether the victim was hospitalized; prognosis of the victim; number, relation with the victim and involvement in the abuse (as co-victim) of the minor(s) who witnessed the abuse.ResultsA total of 167 eligible cases were registered. 69% of victims had previous episodes of abuse. The perpetrators were all known and mainly males (96%).The abuses were mainly domestic (79%). In 74% of the cases only a type of violence was perpetrated. In 12% of the cases, the minors were also victims of physical abuse. No statistically significant relationships were found between the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the changes in the number of cases of domestic abuse (p = 0.07), physical abuse (p = 0.62), psychological abuse (p = 0.83) or sexual abuse (p = 0.88). However, during the institutional lockdown in Italy (March-May 2022) only two cases occurred – a number that did not allow period-specific statistical inference.ConclusionsEmpowering the hospital policies specifically aimed at identifying and protecting the victims of violence/witnessed violence remains a critical goal from both a public health and medico-legal point of view.

Emotions in Times of Pandemic Crisis among Italian Children: A Systematic Review

“…This led to the exclusion of 22 reports in line with the inclusion criteria. After reviewing the full texts, nine articles were excluded since the samples included a population over 12 years, from adolescents to young adults [ 2 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ]; eight studies focused on wrong outcomes [ 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]; two studies enrolled children living outside Italy [ 53 , 54 ]; one study was not focused on the variables within the context of the lockdown effects [ 55 ]; and two studies were excluded for other reasons, i.e., the first recruited participants had a pre-existing neuropsychiatric diagnosis [ 56 ] and the second one reported only qualitative data [ 57 ]. As a result, a total of 12 articles, including 13 studies, were eligible for inclusion in the qualitative assessment [ 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 ].…”

“…This led to the exclusion of 22 reports in line with the inclusion criteria. After reviewing the full texts, nine articles were excluded since the samples included a population over 12 years, from adolescents to young adults [2,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]; eight studies focused on wrong outcomes [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]; two studies enrolled children living outside Italy [53,54]; one study was not focused on the variables within the context of the lockdown effects [55]; and two studies were excluded for other reasons, i.e., the first recruited participants had a pre-existing neuropsychiatric diagnosis [56] and the second one reported only qualitative data [57]. As a result, a total of 12 articles, including adolescents to young adults [2,[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]; eight studies focused on wrong outcomes [45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52]; two studies enrolled children living outside Italy [53,54]; one study was not focused on the variables within the context of the lockdown effects [55]; and two studies were excluded for other reasons, i.e., the first recruit...…”