Treatment of Child Neglect: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Child neglect is the most common type of child maltreatment. Our objective was to systematically evaluate the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of child neglect treatment programs, including those focused on victims of childhood neglect and (or) their caregivers. METHOD: We comprehensively searched the Medline, Psycinfo, and Eric databases from January 1980 to May 2003. Two authors independently reviewed 54 studies that met inclusion criteria. Fourteen articles met our design criterion and were assessed for their methodological quality according to guidelines developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS: Of the 14 studies included in the review, 2 were rated as good, and 3 were rated as fair. We found evidence that 2 specific types of play therapy and a therapeutic day treatment program had beneficial effects for children. Further, parents and children in families where neglect had occurred showed improvement with multisystemic therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Rigorous studies of treatments for neglected children and their families are lacking. Well-designed and well-conducted evaluations are urgently required to identify effective treatments, which should then be made available to children and their caregivers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".