Search

Background: Based on previous studies reporting language disorders associated with maternal overload and changes in parenting practices, this study aimed to investigate maternal gatekeeping and overprotectiveness in developmental language disorder (DLD)., Methods: Forty-five children with DLD and 46 children with typical language development (TLD) children were included in this study. To assess the level of maternal gatekeeping and overprotectiveness, we employed Maternal Gatekeeping Scale (MGS) and Parent Attitude Scale (PAS). Additionally, participant's language abilities were evaluated using Test of Early Language Development-3 (TELD-3), and their overall developmental status was assessed using Denver Development Screening Test-2 (DDST-II). Immitance-metric assessment and auto-acoustic emission testing were also used to assess hearing functions., Results: Mean PAS-overprotection (34.1 ± 8.4, 24.3 ± 5.9, P < .001) and MGS total scores (141.7 ± 24.1, 115.7 ± 20.5, P < .001) in children with DLD were significantly higher than those of the TLD. Factors affecting MGS scores were investigated using Multiple linear regression analysis. DLD diagnosis (β = 14.195, P  = .029), PAS-overprotection (β = 1.158, P  = .001) and family income level (β = 9.643, P  = .045) were found as significantly associated with MGS scores. In addition, PAS-overprotective obtained to have a partial mediating role in the relationship between DLD diagnosis and MGS scores (β = .391, P < .001)., Conclusion: Present study reveals that maternal gatekeeping is associated with DLD and overprotection. These findings underscore the importance of evaluating motherhood practices and fostering independency supportive attitudes in the care for children with DLD., Competing Interests: Declaration of Interests: The authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (2024 authors.)

Introduction: Child abuse combines emotional, physical, sexual, and neglect aspects of violence, thus diversifying the trauma for a child. Publications about child abuse had been discussed in academia for long years and evaluated by bibliometric analysis, frequently. This study aims to evaluate the most discussed/disseminated scientific publications about child abuse in electronic media such as social media accounts, blogs, podcasts, and media news sites using a new analysis method called altmetric analysis., Methods: The data were obtained from the Altmetric Explorer database using the phrase "child abuse," in 2021. After being ranked by altmetric attention score (AAS), descriptive statistics for all publications as well as detailed analyses for the first-100 publications were performed. Variables evaluated were AAS, dimensions-badge value, distribution of web sources, demographic/geographic-breakdown type distributions, main subject categories, and mesh terms. Kruskal Wallis test was used for AAS and dimensions-badge value comparisons while Spearman correlations and regression analysis were also performed. Analyses were performed by SPSS 23.0 (IBM SPSS, Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) and p<0.05 was considered statistically significant., Results: Publications about child abuse were shared extensively on social media, mostly on Twitter. In terms of the main subject, sexual abuse was the trending topic, followed by physical abuse and maltreatment. Psychology, studies in human society, health sciences, and law/legal issues were the four main science categories about the subject. The United States was the major disseminator of publications while Child Abuse and Neglect was the most productive journal. There was a weak but significant (p<0.05) positive correlation between AAS and dimensions-badge values., Conclusion: Child abuse is a multidimensional subject in social media. As the number of publications increases, the possibility of articles to be shared on different social media platforms also increases. The majority of the top-100 publications are the ones emphasizing the importance of child abuse in terms of the prevalence, individual/social burden, and negative consequences., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright © 2022, Akova et al.)