中国留守儿童问题研究：元分析。
The Neglect of Left-Behind Children in China: A Meta-Analysis.
机构信息
The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders & Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders & Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders Center of Schizophrenia, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, China.
The Affiliated Brain Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou Huiai Hospital, China.
出版信息
Trauma Violence Abuse. 2021 Dec;22(5):1326-1338. doi: 10.1177/1524838020916837. Epub 2020 Apr 20.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the neglect of left-behind children (LBC) in China.
METHOD
Children separated from one or both parents for at least 6 months. Trauma of separation. Non-left-behind children (NLBC). Neglect rates and severity. Only case-control studies were included.
RESULTS
Thirteen studies were included; there were 18,688 LBC in a large sample ( = 42,003) of children aged 0-18 years in China. The overall neglect rate was significantly higher in LBC compared to NLBC (odds ratio [] = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.50, 1.67], < .01) based on the Chinese Rural Child Neglected Evaluation Model (CRCNEM) and the Parents-Child Conflict Tactics Scales ( = 1.44, 95% CI [1.35, 1.54], < .01). The overall neglect severity in LBC was also significantly higher than NLBC ( = 0.31, 95% CI [0.28, 0.33], < .01). The same trends were observed in sex subgroups. With regard to subtypes, LBC were significantly more likely to have emotional neglect ( = 2.29, 95% CI [1.88, 2.78], < .01), medical neglect ( = 1.79, 95% CI [1.62, 1.98], < .01), physical neglect ( = 1.75, 95% CI [1.60, 1.91], < .01), security neglect ( = 1.52, 95% CI [1.32, 1.75], < .01), educational neglect ( = 1.50, 95% CI [1.31, 1.72], < .01), and social neglect ( = 1.33, 95% CI [1.18, 1.51], < .01). Furthermore, LBC had significantly higher severity in medical neglect ( = 0.31, 95% CI [0.27, 0.35], < .01), emotional neglect ( = 0.28, 95% CI [0.24, 0.32], < .01), physical neglect ( = 0.24, 95% CI [0.18, 0.29], < .01), security neglect ( = 0.26, 95% CI [0.23, 0.29], < .01), educational neglect ( = 0.25, 95% CI [0.20, 0.31], < .01), and social neglect ( = 0.25, 95% CI [0.10, 0.40], < .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.
目的
评估中国留守儿童（LBC）的忽视问题。
方法
儿童与父母至少分离 6 个月。分离创伤。非留守儿童（NLBC）。忽视率和严重程度。仅纳入病例对照研究。
结果
共纳入 13 项研究；在中国一项大型 0-18 岁儿童（=42003）样本中，有 18688 名 LBC。基于中国农村儿童忽视评价模型（CRCNEM）和父母-儿童冲突策略量表（=1.44，95%置信区间[CI]：[1.35，1.54]，<0.01），与 NLBC 相比，LBC 的忽视率显著更高。LBC 的总体忽视严重程度也明显高于 NLBC（=0.31，95%CI：[0.28，0.33]，<0.01）。在性别亚组中观察到了相同的趋势。就亚型而言，LBC 更有可能出现情感忽视（=2.29，95%CI：[1.88，2.78]，<0.01）、医疗忽视（=1.79，95%CI：[1.62，1.98]，<0.01）、身体忽视（=1.75，95%CI：[1.60，1.91]，<0.01）、安全忽视（=1.52，95%CI：[1.32，1.75]，<0.01）、教育忽视（=1.50，95%CI：[1.31，1.72]，<0.01）和社会忽视（=1.33，95%CI：[1.18，1.51]，<0.01）。此外，LBC 在医疗忽视（=0.31，95%CI：[0.27，0.35]，<0.01）、情感忽视（=0.28，95%CI：[0.24，0.32]，<0.01）、身体忽视（=0.24，95%CI：[0.18，0.29]，<0.01）、安全忽视（=0.26，95%CI：[0.23，0.29]，<0.01）、教育忽视（=0.25，95%CI：[0.20，0.31]，<0.01）和社会忽视（=0.25，95%CI：[0.10，0.40]，<0.01）方面的严重程度也明显更高。
结论
中国 LBC 的忽视率和严重程度均明显高于 NLBC。忽视与 LBC 之间存在很强的关联。迫切需要改变公共政策，以改善留守儿童的困境和福祉。
Zotero 插件