The definitions of psychological abuse/neglect of children by the public: implications for policy and practice

首先，对国际上关于公众对儿童的心理虐待和忽视（PA）的定义的文献的性质进行了系统的回顾。制定了研究方案，然后检索了两个主要数据库（PsycINFO和Pubmed）。已确定的研究被导入EPPI审稿人网站，并进行筛选和编码。已确定的研究表明，与公众虐待儿童的其他形式相比，PEA的抽象定义和操作定义的门槛都很高。其次，进行了一项基于小插图的在线调查，以了解日本公众如何理解PEA的含义。在研究之前，获得了东京大学医学院研究伦理委员会的伦理批准。该调查由PI开发，共收集了300个数据点。对于抽象的定义，受访者最有可能给出“可能虐待”（36%），其次是“可能虐待”（25%）和“绝对虐待”（23%）。对于操作定义，最常见的答案是“什么都不做”（35%），最不常见的答案是“报告”（14%）。这些数据将被进一步调查。第三，准备了一项试点研究，旨在测试定义框架在提高公众对PA概念的认识方面的可行性。制定了一份解释定义概念框架的传单，并起草了一份道德批准表格。

Firstly, a systematic review was undertaken to understand the nature of international literature on the definitions of psychological abuse and neglect of children (PA) by the public. The research protocol was developed and then two major databases (PsycINFO and Pubmed) were searched. The identified studies were imported to EPPI Reviewer web and screened and coded. The identified studies illustrated the high threshold for both abstract definitions and operational definitions of PEA compared to other forms of child maltreatment by the public.Second, a vignette-based online survey was undertaken to understand how the public in Japan understand the meaning of PEA. Prior to the study, Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Tokyo. The survey was developed by PI and a total number of 300 data points were collected. For abstract definitions, the respondents were most likely to assign “maybe abuse” (36%), and this was followed “probably abuse” (25%) and “definitely abuse” (23%). For operational definitions, the most common answer was “do nothing” (35%) and the least common answer was “reporting” (14%). The data will be further investigated.Third, preparation of a pilot study which aims to test the feasibility of the definitional framework in enhancing the conceptualization of PA by the public was carried out. A leaflet to explain a definitional conceptual framework was developed and an Ethics approval form was drafted.