COVID-19 and Caregiver Risk Factors for Child Maltreatment: The Pandemic in Review.

The COVID-19 pandemic has fostered an environment for increased risk of child maltreatment (CM) as families experience increased psychosocial and financial burdens and spend unprecedented amounts of time together in the home. This narrative review aimed to summarize empirical findings on existing or new pandemic-related risk factors among caregivers. A combination of search terms related to CM and COVID-19 were used to identify articles published within five databases between February 2020 and July 2022. Literature searches produced 113 articles, of which 26 published across 12 countries met inclusion criteria. Four previously well-established risk factors for CM perpetration continued to persist during the pandemic, including stress, parental mental health, financial concerns, and parental substance use. Of note, inconsistent definitions and measures were used to capture these risk factors. Several additional emerging and understudied risk factors were also identified among limited articles, such as food insecurity and parental education. Findings emphasize the ongoing need for evidence-based interventions to address CM risk during the pandemic, including parent training programs. However, consolidated measures and consistent conceptualization of risk factors are needed to advance the study of CM. Going forward, practitioners and researchers should (a) strengthen the identification process for families at greatest risk for CM, and particularly those vulnerable to pandemic-related stressors; and (b) augment delivery of CM prevention strategies and evidence-based programs to fit the pandemic context.

Mapping Health Disparities in 11 High-Income Nations.

Importance: Health care delivery faces a myriad of challenges globally with well-documented health inequities based on geographic location. Yet, researchers and policy makers have a limited understanding of the frequency of geographic health disparities. Objective: To describe geographic health disparities in 11 high-income countries. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, we analyzed results from the 2020 Commonwealth Fund International Health Policy (IHP) Survey-a nationally representative, self-reported, and cross-sectional survey of adults from Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the UK, and the US. Eligible adults older than age 18 years were included by random sampling. Survey data were compared for the association of area type (rural or urban) with 10 health indicators across 3 domains: health status and socioeconomic risk factors, affordability of care, and access to care. Logistic regression was used to determine the associations between countries with area type for each factor, controlling for individuals' age and sex. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were geographic health disparities as measured by differences in respondents living in urban and rural settings in 10 health indicators across 3 domains. Results: There were 22 402 survey respondents (12 804 female [57.2%]), with a 14% to 49% response rate depending on the country. Across the 11 countries and 10 health indicators and 3 domains (health status and socioeconomic risk factors, affordability of care, access to care), there were 21 occurrences of geographic health disparities; 13 of those in which rural residence was a protective factor and 8 of those where rural residence was a risk factor. The mean (SD) number of geographic health disparities in the countries was 1.9 (1.7). The US had statistically significant geographic health disparities in 5 of 10 indicators, the most of any country, while Canada, Norway, and the Netherlands had no statistically significant geographic health disparities. The indicators with the most occurrences of geographic health disparities were in the access to care domain. Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of 11 high-income nations, health disparities across 10 indicators were identified. Differences in number of disparities reported by country suggest that health policy and decision makers in the US should look to Canada, Norway, and the Netherlands to improve geographic-based health equity.

Use of technology in evidence-based programs for child maltreatment and its impact on parent and child outcomes.

Introduction: Technology has been used in evidence-based child maltreatment (CM) programs for over a decade. Although advancements have been made, the extent of the application of technology in these programs, and its influence on parental and child outcomes, remains unclear within the context of changes that emerged because of the COVID-19 pandemic. This scoping review provides a contextualized overview and summary of the use of technology in evidence-based parenting and child programs serving families impacted by child maltreatment and the effects of technology-enhanced programs on target outcomes. Materials and methods: Using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, we searched seven databases to identify peer-reviewed and grey literature published in English from 2000 to 2023 on evidence-based programs, according to the California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse (CEBC), that included technological supports for two populations: at-risk parents for child maltreatment prevention, and children and youth 0-18 years exposed to child maltreatment. All study designs were included. Results: Eight evidence-based parenting programs and one evidence-based child trauma program were identified as using technology across a total of 25 peer-reviewed articles and 2 peer-reviewed abstracts meeting inclusion criteria (n = 19 on parent-level programs; n = 8 on child-level programs). Four studies were published in the context of COVID-19. Two main uses of technology emerged: (1) remote programmatic delivery (i.e., delivering all or part of the program virtually using technology) and (2) programmatic enhancement (i.e., augmenting program content with technology). Improvements across parenting and child mental health and behavioral outcomes were generally observed. Discussion: Technology use in evidence-based child maltreatment programs is not new; however, the small sample since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in this review that met inclusion criteria highlight the dearth of research published on the topic. Findings also suggest the need for the inclusion of implementation outcomes related to adoption and engagement, which could inform equitable dissemination and implementation of these programs. Additional considerations for research and practice are discussed.

Knowledge and use of sterile water injections amongst midwives in the United Kingdom: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The use of sterile water injections (SWI) for the relief of pain in labour is popular amongst midwives in countries such as Sweden and Australia. Anecdotal reports suggest the procedure is used less commonly in the United Kingdom (UK) and that a number of barriers to introducing the practice may exist. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore the awareness and use of SWI amongst midwives in the UK. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study using an internet-based questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: Midwives with Nursing and Midwifery Council Registration and currently practicing. SETTING: The questionnaire was distributed via the Royal College of Midwives Facebook page and Twitter account. Invitations to participate were also sent to Heads of Midwifery to distribute to staff. FINDINGS: Three hundred and ninety-eight midwives completed the survey. Eighty-two percent of midwives did not use SWI in practice although 69% would consider learning the procedure. There was considerable variation in techniques amongst midwives that did provide SWI. The lack of available practice guidelines and the advice from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to not use SWI were cited as the main barriers. KEY CONCLUSIONS: SWI use is uncommon in the UK although midwives are interested in incorporating the procedure into practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: National guidance on SWI and the lack of information and training is restricting the use of the procedure in practice, despite SWI being widely used in other countries and being effective in the treatment of pain in labour.