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

首先，进行了系统的审查，以了解国际文献的性质对儿童的心理虐待和忽视（PA）的定义。制定研究方案，然后检索两个主要数据库（PsycINFO和Pubmed）。将识别的研究导入EPPI Reviewer网站并进行筛选和编码。所确定的研究表明，无论是抽象的定义和操作定义的PEA相比，其他形式的虐待儿童的公众。第二，基于插图的在线调查，以了解公众在日本如何理解PEA的含义。研究前，从东京大学医学部研究伦理委员会获得伦理批准。该调查由PI开发，共收集了300个数据点。对于抽象定义，受访者最有可能指定“可能滥用”（36%），其次是“可能滥用”（25%）和“肯定滥用”（23%）。对于业务定义，最常见的答案是“什么都不做”（35%），最不常见的答案是“报告”（14%）。第三，进行了一项试验性研究的准备工作，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。编写了一份解释定义概念框架的传单，并起草了一份伦理审批表。

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.