1. The Neglect of Left-Behind Children in China: A Meta-Analysis.
- Author
-
Wen, Yu-Jie, Hou, Wen-Peng, Zheng, Wei, Zhao, Xi-Xi, Wang, Xue-Qi, Bo, Qi-Jing, Pao, Christine, Tang, Yi-Lang, Tan, Tony, Li, Xian-Bin, and Wang, Chuan-Yue
- Subjects
ONLINE information services ,PSYCHOLOGY information storage & retrieval systems ,META-analysis ,ORPHANAGES ,MEDICAL information storage & retrieval systems ,INFORMATION storage & retrieval systems ,MEDICAL databases ,CHILD abuse ,SYSTEMATIC reviews ,EMOTIONAL trauma ,ORPHANS ,MEDLINE - Abstract
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]
- Published
- 2021
- Full Text
- View/download PDF