IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v19y2022i23p15568-d982108.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Survey on Reporting of Child Abuse by Pediatricians: Intrapersonal Inconsistencies Influence Reporting Behavior More than Legislation

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver Berthold

    (Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Steinhövelstr. 5, 89075 Ulm, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Vera Clemens

    (Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Steinhövelstr. 5, 89075 Ulm, Germany
    These authors contributed equally to this work.)

  • Benjamin H. Levi

    (Departments of Humanities and Pediatrics, Penn State College of Medicine, 700 HMC Crescent Road, Hershey, PA 17033, USA)

  • Marion Jarczok

    (Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Steinhövelstr. 5, 89075 Ulm, Germany)

  • Jörg M. Fegert

    (Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Steinhövelstr. 5, 89075 Ulm, Germany)

  • Andreas Jud

    (Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry/Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Steinhövelstr. 5, 89075 Ulm, Germany
    School of Social Work, Lucerne University of Applied Sciences and Arts, Werftestrasse 1, 6002 Lucerne, Switzerland)

Abstract

Background : Internationally, various laws govern reporting of child abuse to child protection services by medical professionals. Whether mandatory reporting laws are in place or not, medical professionals need internal thresholds for suspicion of abuse to even consider a report (“reasonable suspicion” in US law, “gewichtige Anhaltspunkte” in German law). Objective: To compare internal thresholds for suspicion of abuse among US and German pediatricians, i.e., from two countries with and without mandatory reporting laws. Participants and Setting: In Germany, 1581 pediatricians participated in a nationwide survey among child health professionals. In the US, a survey was mailed to all Pennsylvania pediatricians, and 1249 participated. Methods: Both samples were asked how high in their rank order of differential diagnoses child abuse would have to be when confronted with a child’s injuries to qualify for reasonable suspicion/gewichtige Anhaltspunkte (differential diagnosis scale, DDS). In a second step, both had to mark a 10-point likelihood scale (0–100%) corresponding to reasonable suspicion/gewichtige Anhaltspunkte (estimated probability scale, EPS). Results: While for almost two-thirds of German pediatricians (62.4%), child abuse had to be among the top three differential diagnoses for gewichtige Anhaltspunkte, over half of the US respondents (48.1%) had a lower threshold for reasonable suspicion. On the estimated probability scale, over 65% in both samples indicated that the probability of abuse had to exceed 50% for reasonable suspicion/gewichtige Anhaltspunkte. There was great variability between the two countries. Conclusions: There are similar uncertainties in assessing cases of suspected child abuse in different legal systems. There is a need for debates on thresholds among medical professionals in both countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver Berthold & Vera Clemens & Benjamin H. Levi & Marion Jarczok & Jörg M. Fegert & Andreas Jud, 2022. "Survey on Reporting of Child Abuse by Pediatricians: Intrapersonal Inconsistencies Influence Reporting Behavior More than Legislation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-9, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15568-:d:982108
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15568/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/23/15568/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ben Mathews, 2014. "Mandatory Reporting Laws and Identification of Child Abuse and Neglect: Consideration of Differential Maltreatment Types, and a Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis of Child Sexual Abuse Reports," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-23, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alfandari, Ravit & Enosh, Guy & Rechnitzer, Haim, 2021. "To split or include? Child sexual abuse mandate reporting in the ultra-orthodox Jewish community in Israel," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Ben Mathews & Leah Bromfield & Kerryann Walsh, 2020. "Comparing Reports of Child Sexual and Physical Abuse Using Child Welfare Agency Data in Two Jurisdictions with Different Mandatory Reporting Laws," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-22, May.
    3. Koçtürk, Nilüfer & Bilginer, Samiye Çilem, 2020. "Adolescent sexual abuse victims' levels of perceived social support and delayed disclosure," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    4. Alazri, Zeinab & Hanna, Kathleen M., 2020. "School personnel and child abuse and neglect reporting behavior: An integrative review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:23:p:15568-:d:982108. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.