↓ Skip to main content

Reasons for reported suspicion of child maltreatment and responses from the child welfare - a cross-sectional study of Norwegian public dental health personnel

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
Reasons for reported suspicion of child maltreatment and responses from the child welfare - a cross-sectional study of Norwegian public dental health personnel
Published in
BMC Oral Health, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12903-018-0490-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingfrid Vaksdal Brattabø, Ragnhild Bjørknes, Anne Nordrehaug Åstrøm

Abstract

To prevent child maltreatment, the identification of vulnerable children is essential. In Norway, public dental health personnel (PDHP) report suspicion of child maltreatment to child welfare services (CWS) at a relatively high rate. However, their reasons for reporting and the response from CWS have not been investigated. The objectives of this study were to (1) explore the reasons that PDHP send reports of concern, (2) examine how CWS responds to PDHP reports, and (3) assess whether different reasons for concern are associated with a given response from CWS. A national cross-sectional study was conducted by an electronic survey distributed to public dental hygienists and dentists in Norway. Descriptive statistics were calculated in terms of mean (SD) distributions and frequency, expressed as % (n). To account for clustering of responses among respondents, binomial generalized estimating equation analysis was used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) of CWS responses across number of reports with different reasons for concern. Of a total of 1542 questionnaire recipients, 1200 (77.8%) responded to the survey. From 2012 to 2014, 42.5% of the respondents sent 1214 reports to CWS, with a mean number of 2.7 (SD = 2.0) reports per respondent. The PDHP sent the reports due to suspicion of neglect or physical, sexual and/or psychological abuse. Non-attendance at dental appointments and grave caries were reported most frequently. Among the reports, 24.5% resulted in measures being taken by CWS, 20.7% were dropped, and 29.4% lacked information from CWS on the outcome. Reports due to suspicion of sexual abuse, (OR 1.979, 95% CI (1.047-3.742), P = 0.036), grave caries (OR 1.628, 95% CI (1.148-2.309), P = 0.006), and suspicion of neglect (OR 1.649, 95% CI (1.190-2.285), P = 0.003) had the highest association with the implementation of measures. PDHP report on several forms of child maltreatment and contributes in detection of victimized children. However, the relatively low number of measures being taken by CWS and the number of reports that lack a response to reporters reveal a need for a closer cooperation between the services, as this would benefit both the children at risk and the services.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 100 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Researcher 6 6%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 37 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 10%
Social Sciences 7 7%
Psychology 6 6%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 42 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2019.
All research outputs
#1,963,869
of 23,028,364 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#74
of 1,491 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,043
of 331,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#3
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,028,364 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,491 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,406 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.