Search

Background: This review aims to estimate the prevalence of the neglect of 3- to 6-year-old children in China. Method: We systematically searched both English- (Web of Science, PsychINFO, PubMed, and Cochrane Library) and Chinese-language databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Weipu, and Biomedical Database). We extracted data related to the prevalence of early childhood neglect and its subtypes and pooled it using random effects models. Findings: We included 21 eligible studies, with a total of 35,175 3- to 6-year-old children, in the analyses. The pooled neglect prevalence was 32.1% at a 95% confidence interval (95% CI [27.0%, 37.2%]). The prevalence of physical, emotional, educational, security, and medical neglect was 15.2% (95% CI [11.9%, 18.5%]), 15.2% (95% CI [10.7%, 19.6%]), 10.4% (95% CI [7.4%, 13.4%]), 13.8% (95% CI [9.9%, 17.8%]), and 11.5% (95% CI [8.1%, 14.9%]), respectively. No gender or location differences were found to affect early childhood neglect or its subtypes. Interpretation: Our results revealed a high prevalence of early childhood neglect—including all its subtypes—among 3- to 6-year-old children in China. Improved child policies and prevention programs tailored to preschool children are needed to protect the well-being of younger children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the neglect of left-behind children (LBC) in China. Method: Participants: Children separated from one or both parents for at least 6 months. Intervention: Trauma of separation. Comparison: Non-left-behind children (NLBC). Outcomes: Neglect rates and severity. Only case–control studies were included. Results: Thirteen studies were included; there were 18,688 LBC in a large sample (N = 42,003) of children aged 0–18 years in China. The overall neglect rate was significantly higher in LBC compared to NLBC (odds ratio [ OR ] = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.50, 1.67], p <.01) based on the Chinese Rural Child Neglected Evaluation Model (CRCNEM) and the Parents–Child Conflict Tactics Scales (OR = 1.44, 95% CI [1.35, 1.54], p <.01). The overall neglect severity in LBC was also significantly higher than NLBC (SMD = 0.31, 95% CI [0.28, 0.33], p <.01). The same trends were observed in sex subgroups. With regard to subtypes, LBC were significantly more likely to have emotional neglect (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.88, 2.78], p <.01), medical neglect (OR = 1.79, 95% CI [1.62, 1.98], p <.01), physical neglect (OR = 1.75, 95% CI [1.60, 1.91], p <.01), security neglect (OR = 1.52, 95% CI [1.32, 1.75], p <.01), educational neglect (OR = 1.50, 95% CI [1.31, 1.72], p <.01), and social neglect (OR = 1.33, 95% CI [1.18, 1.51], p <.01). Furthermore, LBC had significantly higher severity in medical neglect (SMD = 0.31, 95% CI [0.27, 0.35], p <.01), emotional neglect (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI [0.24, 0.32], p <.01), physical neglect (SMD = 0.24, 95% CI [0.18, 0.29], p <.01), security neglect (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI [0.23, 0.29], p <.01), educational neglect (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI [0.20, 0.31], p <.01), and social neglect (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI [0.10, 0.40], p <.01). Conclusion: The neglect rates and severity in LBC in China were both significantly higher than those in NLBC. There was a strong association between neglect and LBC. Public policy changes are urgently needed to improve the dire situation and the well-being of the LBC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]