MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2766932810 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013942

Mandated reporters’ experiences with reporting child maltreatment: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies

2017· review· en· W2766932810 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jill R. McTavish, Melissa Kimber, Karen Devries, Manuela Colombini, Jennifer C. D. MacGregor, C. Nadine Wathen, Arnav Agarwal, Harriet L. MacMillan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersInstitute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and AddictionInstitute of Gender and HealthCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMcMaster UniversityVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
KeywordsMedicineQualitative researchFamily medicinePublic healthPoison controlHuman factors and ergonomicsMeta-analysisSuicide preventionInjury preventionPsychiatryEnvironmental healthNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To systematically search for research about the effectiveness of mandatory reporting of child maltreatment and to synthesise qualitative research that explores mandated reporters' (MRs) experiences with reporting. DESIGN: As no studies assessing the effectiveness of mandatory reporting were retrieved from our systematic search, we conducted a meta-synthesis of retrieved qualitative research. Searches in Medline (Ovid), Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Sociological Abstracts, Education Resources Information Center, Criminal Justice Abstracts and Cochrane Library yielded over 6000 citations, which were deduplicated and then screened by two independent reviewers. English-language, primary qualitative studies that investigated MRs' experiences with reporting of child maltreatment were included. Critical appraisal involved a modified checklist from the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and qualitative meta-synthesis was used to combine results from the primary studies. SETTING: All healthcare and social-service settings implicated by mandatory reporting laws were included. Included studies crossed nine high-income countries (USA, Australia, Sweden, Taiwan, Canada, Norway, Finland, Israel and Cyprus) and three middle-income countries (South Africa, Brazil and El Salvador). PARTICIPANTS: The studies represent the views of 1088 MRs. OUTCOMES: Factors that influence MRs' decision to report and MRs' views towards and experiences with mandatory reporting of child maltreatment. RESULTS: Forty-four articles reporting 42 studies were included. Findings indicate that MRs struggle to identify and respond to less overt forms of child maltreatment. While some articles (14%) described positive experiences MRs had with the reporting process, negative experiences were reported in 73% of articles and included accounts of harm to therapeutic relationships and child death following removal from their family of origin. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-synthesis suggest that there are many potentially harmful experiences associated with mandatory reporting and that research on the effectiveness of this process is urgently needed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.142
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.296
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.749

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1420.296
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0210.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.744
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.120 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations157
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChild Abuse and TraumaFrench-language works237,207