TY - JOUR
T1 - Surveillance bias in child maltreatment
T2 - A tempest in a teapot
AU - Drake, Brett
AU - Jonson-Reid, Melissa
AU - Kim, Hyunil
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgments: Data used for analyses for Tables 2 and 3 were supported by funding from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (#CE001190) and the National Institute for Mental Health (#MH061733). Points of view expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agency.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
PY - 2017/9
Y1 - 2017/9
N2 - Background: Children are believed to be more likely to be reported for maltreatment while they are working with mental health or social service professionals. This “surveillance bias” has been claimed to inflate reporting by fifty percent or more, and has been used to explain why interventions such as home visiting fail to reduce official maltreatment reporting rates. Methods: We use national child abuse reporting data (n = 825,763), supplemented by more detailed regional data from a multi-agency administrative data study (n = 7185). We determine the percentage of all re-reports made uniquely by mental health and social service providers within and across generations, the report sources which could be subject to surveillance bias. Results: At three years after the initial Child protective services (CPS) report, the total percentage of national reports uniquely made by mental health or social service providers is less than 10%, making it impossible that surveillance bias could massively inflate CPS reporting in this sample. Analysis of national data find evidence of a very small (+4.54%) initial surveillance bias “bump” among served cases which decays to +1.84% within three years. Our analysis of regional data showed similar or weaker effects. Conclusions: Surveillance bias effects appear to exist, but are very small.
AB - Background: Children are believed to be more likely to be reported for maltreatment while they are working with mental health or social service professionals. This “surveillance bias” has been claimed to inflate reporting by fifty percent or more, and has been used to explain why interventions such as home visiting fail to reduce official maltreatment reporting rates. Methods: We use national child abuse reporting data (n = 825,763), supplemented by more detailed regional data from a multi-agency administrative data study (n = 7185). We determine the percentage of all re-reports made uniquely by mental health and social service providers within and across generations, the report sources which could be subject to surveillance bias. Results: At three years after the initial Child protective services (CPS) report, the total percentage of national reports uniquely made by mental health or social service providers is less than 10%, making it impossible that surveillance bias could massively inflate CPS reporting in this sample. Analysis of national data find evidence of a very small (+4.54%) initial surveillance bias “bump” among served cases which decays to +1.84% within three years. Our analysis of regional data showed similar or weaker effects. Conclusions: Surveillance bias effects appear to exist, but are very small.
KW - Child abuse and neglect
KW - Child maltreatment
KW - Nurse home visiting
KW - Surveillance bias
KW - Visibility bias
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028556461&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028556461&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3390/ijerph14090971
DO - 10.3390/ijerph14090971
M3 - Article
C2 - 28846657
AN - SCOPUS:85028556461
SN - 1661-7827
VL - 14
JO - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
JF - International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
IS - 9
M1 - 971
ER -