Document Type : Original articles
Authors
1 B.Sc.-Nursing of Secondary Nursing School Minia Ministry of Healthy
2 Professor of Community Medicine Faculty of Medicine Minia University
3 Lecturer of Pediatric Nursing Faculty of Nursing Minia University
Abstract
Highlights
Asmaa Mokhtar Abd El Hakeem 1; Refaat Raouf Sadek2; Aml Sayed Ali 3Asmaa HamedTawfik4
1 B.Sc.-Nursing of Secondary Nursing School Minia Ministry of Healthy;
2 Professor of Community Medicine Faculty of Medicine Minia University;
3 Lecturer of Pediatric Nursing Faculty of Nursing Minia University;
4 Lecturer of Pediatric Nursing Faculty of Nursing Minia University
Keywords
Introduction
The terms child abuse and child maltreatment are often used interchangeably although some researchers make a distinction between them treating child maltreatment as an umbrella term to cover neglect, exploitation and trafficking. (Wise, Deborah ,2015).
In the United States the centers for disease control and prevention (CDC) uses the term child maltreatment to refer to both acts of commission and omission abuse which include words or overt actions that cause harm or potential harm. (World Health Organization, 2016).
The World Health Organization distinguishes four types of child maltreatment physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional and psychological abuse, and neglect. (World Health Organization and International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, 2016).
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the international society for prevention of child abuse and neglect (ISPCAN) identify multiple factors at the level of the individual, their relationships, their local community and their society at large that combine to influence the occurrence of child maltreatment. At the individual level such factors include age, sex, and personal history while at the level of society factors contributing to child maltreatment include cultural norms encouraging harsh physical punishment of children, economic inequality and the lack of social safety nets. (World Health Organization and International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect ,2016).
Unemployment and financial difficulties are associated with increased rates of child abuse. In 2015 CBS news reported that child abuse in the United States had increased during the economic recession. (Hughes, Sandra 2015).
Significance of the Study
According to UNICEF statistics the study in Egypt found that most of the children aged 13-17 interviewed 61 percent in Cairo 65 percent in Alexandria and 67 percent in Assiut reported that they had been exposed to some physical violence in the past year with boys more likely to be exposed to physical violence than girls. (National Council for Childhood and Motherhood (NCCM) and UNICEF 2015).
According to national child abuse statistics 4.1 million child maltreatment referral reports received Child abuse reports involved 7.5 million children 3.2 million children received prevention & post response services 142,301 children received foster care services 74.9% of victims are neglected 18.3% of victims are physically abused 8.6% of victims are sexually abused 7.1% of victims are psychologically maltreated and highest rate of child abuse in children under age one 25.3% per 1,000. (May 2014).
Aim of the study:
The aim of this study is to assess pattern of family's abuse and negligence exposure among nursing schools students.
Research Hypothesis:
Subjects and methods
Research design:
Descriptive exploratory research design was utilized to meet the aim of this study.
Setting:
The study was conducted in secondary nursing schools in Minia distric which includes the following schools secondary nursing school affiliated to ministry of health, secondary nursing school of health insurance, secondary university nursing school, and secondary school of nursing in zohra.
Sample:
The subjects of this study consisted of all students (499) in the selected secondary nursing school they were 90 female and 62 male students from school affiliated to the ministry of health, 129 female student from school of health insurance and 54 female and 114 male students from university school.
N.B: 12 students refused to participate in the study so the final number of the sample was 437 students.
Tools of data collection:
Structured interview questionnaire it was developed by the researcher in Arabic
Language after reviewing related literature it covers the following tools:-
It consist of 16 questions it included the related items of abuse and negligence such as types of family abuse, causes of each type and signs and symptoms of each type.
Each right answer was got two score with a total score 32, less than 20 score (60%) was considered unsatisfactory, 20 – 32 (60 – 100 %) was considered satisfactory.
Tool (2) part (2) :- child trauma questionnaire (Diavid P.Bernstein 1995 ) is a standardized scale for measuring abuse and negligence of childhood or adolescent it firstly began with 28 items and later on modified by researcher and measures four items: physical, emotional, sexual abuse and neglect the instruction asked how much of a problem occur it consisted finally from 39 items.
A five point likert scale is used (0=never, 1=almost never, 2= some times, 3= often, 4= always). A total scale score is 156 was divided into two class (1) abused=94 score (60%) and (2) not abused less than 94 score less than (60%).
After pilot sample was done the researcher found that must be put tool specify with students’ knowledge about abuse and negligence.
Procedure
Data of the current study were done by researcher from October 2016 to April 2017 once official permissions were obtained the 437 nursing students who included
Into the present study while 12 students refused to participation in the study. The students were interviewed per day 9:00 AM to 1:00 PM in two days each week within average of 15 minutes for each student the researcher met the students when they were available in the class they were assured on the issue of confidentiality and all students were requested to fill out the questionnaires anonymously. The questionnaire was read aloud to students.
Pilot Study
A pilot study was carried out on 10% of nursing students in the nursing secondary schools who fulfilled the inclusion criteria for testing the clarity, completeness and to determine the time involvement according to the results of pilot, the pilot group was included in the study.
Ethical considerations
A written initial approval was obtained from the researcher ethical committee of the faculty of nursing Minia University and written informed consent was obtained from directors of nursing secondary school which students participate in the study. Each assessment sheet was coded and students name was not appeared on the sheets for the purpose of anonymity and confidentiality. The students were assured that they could withdraw at any time from the study. Administrative approvals were obtained from the dean of faculty of nursing Minia University to directors of nursing secondary school before implementation of the study. Meeting with head master and teacher to explain the nature and purpose of the study, the purpose and nature of the study were explained by the researcher through direct personal communication prior starting to their participation in the study to the students oral consent was obtained from students. These data were confidential between students and the researcher and were used for the purpose of the research only.
Statistical Analysis
Data entry was done using compatible personal computer IBM. The statistical analysis was done using SPSS-12 statistical software package and excel for figures. The content of each tool analyzed, categorized. Data were presented using descriptive statistics in the form of frequencies and percentages for qualitative variables mean and standard deviations for quantities variable. Quantitative continuous data were compared by using student’s t-test. Qualitative variable were compared using chi-square test. Statistical significance was considered at p- value <0.05.
Results
Table (1) Percentage Distribution of socio demographic characteristics of nursing students’ (n= 437).
|
Percentage (%) |
Frequency (No) |
Variable |
|
20.4% 37.8% 41.9% |
89 165 183 |
Age: (years) - 16 - 16-17 - 17-18 Mean± SD |
|
16.6 ± 0.93 |
||
|
44.9% 55.1% |
196 241 |
Gender - Males - Females |
|
29.5% 70.5% |
129 308 |
Residence - Urban - Rural |
|
5.7% 13.7% 80.5% |
25 60 352 |
Number of sibling - One - Two - Three & more |
|
32% 28.4% 39.6% |
140 124 173 |
Birth order - First child - Second child - Third child or above |
|
7.1% 92.9% |
31 406 |
Housing - Rented - Owned |
|
27% 46% 27% |
118 201 118 |
Crowding index - 3 persons / room & more - 2 person / room - 1 person / room Mean± SD |
|
3.9±0.9 |
||
Table (1) Shows percentage distribution of socio demographic characteristics of nursing students’. It revealed that more than half (55.1%) of students were females and their ages between 17-18 years were (41.9%) with a mean and SD 16.6 ± 0.93. It was found that two third of students from rural area (70.5%) and had three sibling and more were (80.6%). Also it was observed that most of them had owned house (92.9%). Also it was shown (46%) had two person per room.
Table (2) percentage distribution of socio-demographic data of the nursing students’ parents (n =437).
|
Variable |
Mother |
Father |
Total |
|||
|
(No) |
(%) |
(No) |
(%) |
(No) (%) |
||
|
Education - Illiterate - Read and write - Secondary school - University and up |
126 117 155 39 |
28.8% 26.8% 35.5% 9 % |
44 120 194 79 |
10.1% 27.5% 44.4% 18.1% |
170 237 349 118 |
38.9 % 54.3% 79.9% 27.1% |
|
Occupation - House wife - Manual - Clerical - Professional |
307 46 78 4 |
70.3% 10.5% 17.8% 0.9% |
------ 167 198 67 |
----- 38.2% 45.3% 15.3% |
307 213 276 71 |
70.3% 48.7% 63.1% 15.12% |
|
Family income - No income - Less than 1000 - 1000-2000 - 2000-3000 - 3000-5000 |
307 59 62 9 ---- |
70.3% 13.5% 14.2% 2.1% ----- |
5 121 226 71 14 |
1.1% 27.7% 51.7% 16.2% 3.2% |
312 180 288 80 14 |
71.4% 41.2% 65.9% 18.3% 3.2% |
Table (2) percentage distribution of socio-demographic data of the nursing students’ parents. It was observed that mother and father education with secondary school (35.5% and 44.4%) respectively. Two third of their mother were house wife (70.35). Also it was illustrated that (45.3%) of their father were employee and half of them was salary between 1000-2000 (51.7%).
|
Total students’ knowledge score |
Figure (1) Percentage Distribution of students’ total score of knowledge about family abuse and negligence (n= 437).
Figure (1) shows Percentage Distribution of students’ total score of knowledge about family abuse and negligence. It revealed that (66%) of the students have satisfied knowledge about family abuse and one third percentage (34%) had unsatisfied knowledge about family abuse and negligence.
|
Total score of child trauma questioner (CTQ) |
Figure (2) Percentage Distribution of total score of child trauma questioner (n=437).
Figure (2) presents Percentage Distribution of total score of child trauma questioner. It revealed that more than half (66%) of the students’ had exposed to abuse and neglect from their families.
The relationship between socio demographic of nursing schools students’ and types of abuse.
Table (3) relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of nursing schools students’ and Physical, psychological abuse (n=437)
|
Psychological abuse |
Physical abuse |
|
Variable |
|||||||||
|
P Value |
X2
|
Not Abuse N=385 |
Abused N=52 |
P Value |
X2
|
Not Abused N=211 |
Abused N=226 |
|
||||
|
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
|||||
|
0.02* |
7.2 |
21.8 38.4 39.7 |
84 148 153 |
9.6 32.7 57.7 |
5 17 30 |
0.2 |
2.8 |
18.5 41.7 39.8 |
39 88 84 |
22.1 34.1 43.8 |
50 77 99 |
Age: - > 16 - 16-17 - 17-18 |
|
0.4 |
0.4 |
45.5 54.5 |
175 210 |
40.4 54.5 |
21 31 |
0.7 |
0.06 |
45.4 54.5 |
96 115 |
44.2 55.8 |
100 126 |
Gender - Males - Females |
|
0.6 |
0.2 |
29.1 70.9 |
112 273 |
32.7 67.3 |
17 35 |
0.5 |
0.3 |
30.8 69.2 |
65 146 |
28.3 71.7 |
64 162 |
Residence - Urban - Rural |
|
0.2 |
2.7 |
6.2 13 80.7 |
24 50 311 |
1.9 19.2 79.2 |
1 10 42 |
0.04* |
6.1 |
4.3 17.5 87.2 |
9 37 165 |
7.1 10.2 82.7 |
16 23 187 |
NO of sibling - One - Two - Three & more |
|
0.3 |
2.3 |
33.2 27.5 39.2 |
128 106 151 |
23.1 34.6 41.5 |
12 18 22 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
29.9 29.9 40.3 |
63 63 85 |
34.1 27 39.9 |
77 61 88 |
Birth order - First child - Second child - Third child or above |
Table (3) shows relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of nursing schools students’ and Physical, psychological abuse. It was illustrated that there is no a statistical significant between total physical, psychological abuse and gender, Residence, and Birth order. It was illustrated that there is a statistical significant between age & psychological abuse (p = 0.02) and Also between number of sibling and physical abuse (p=0.04) It was found that more than half (55.8%, 54.5% respectively) of students were females had exposed to physical and psychological abuse while (44.2%) of males exposed to physical abuse. Also it noticed that two third of students (71.7%) from rural area and (82.7%) with three siblings and more exposed to physical abuse.
Table (4) relationship between socio-demographic data of nursing students’ parents and Physical abuse (n=437).
|
Variable |
Mother |
Father |
|||||||||||||||
|
Abused N=226 |
Not abused N=211 |
X2
|
P value |
Abused N=226 |
Not abused N=211 |
X2
|
P value |
||||||||||
|
No |
% |
No |
% |
|
No |
% |
No |
% |
|||||||||
|
Education - Illiterate - Read and write - Secondary school - University & up
|
60 59 89 18
|
26.5 26.1 39.4 8
|
66 58 66 21
|
31.3 27.5 31.3 9.9
|
4.2
|
0.3
|
21 59 107 39
|
9.3 26.1 47.3 17.3
|
23 61 87 34
|
10.9 28.9 41.2 15.1
|
4.9
|
0.2
|
|||||
|
Occupation - House wife - Manual - Clerical - Professional |
148 29 44 4
|
65.5 12.8 19.5 1.8
|
159 17 34 0
|
74.4 8.1 16.1 0
|
8.3
|
0.08
|
---- 86 105 33
|
---- 38.1 46.5 14.6
|
---- 81 93 34
|
---- 38.1 44.4 16.1 |
0.57
|
0.9
|
|||||
|
Family income - No income - Less than 1000 - 1000-2000 - 2000-3000 - 3000-5000 |
150 35 37 4 --- |
66.4 15.5 16.4 1.8 ---- |
157 24 25 5 ----- |
74.4 11.4 44.8 2.4 ----- |
4.1
|
0.2
|
2 62 115 45 2 |
0.9 27.4 50.9 19.9 0.9 |
3 59 111 26 12 |
1.4 28 52.6 12.3 5.7 |
12.07
|
0.01*
|
|||||
Table (4) present relationship between socio-demographic data of nursing students’ parents and Physical abuse. It was illustrated that there is a statistical significant between father salary and physical abuse (p = 0.01), it found that more than one third of mother and nearly half of father education secondary school (39.4%, 47.3% respectively) exposed to abuse. It was noticed that two third (74.4%) of mother’ students were house wife not exposed to abuse, while (46.5%) of father’ students were employee exposed to abuse.
Table (5) relationship between socio-demographic data of the nursing students’ parents and psychological abuse (n=437).
|
Variable |
Mother |
Father |
|||||||||||
|
Abused N=52 |
Not abused N=385 |
X2
|
P value |
Abused N=52 |
Not abused N=385 |
X2
|
P value |
||||||
|
No |
% |
No |
% |
|
No |
% |
No |
% |
|
||||
|
Education - Illiterate - Read and write - Secondary school - University & up
|
16 8 21 7
|
30.8 15.4 40.4 13.4
|
110 109 134 32
|
28.6 28.3 34.8 8.3
|
4.7 |
0.3 |
3 16 23 10
|
5.8 30.8 44.2 19.2
|
41 104 171 69
|
10.6 27 44.4 17.9
|
1.3 |
0.8 |
|
|
Occupation - House wife - Manual - Clerical - Professional
|
31 7 14 0
|
59.6 13.5 26.9 0
|
276 39 64 4
|
71.7 10.1 16.6 1
|
4.9 |
0.2 |
--- 18 23 11
|
--- 34.6 44.4 21.1
|
---- 149 175 56
|
----- 38.7 45.5 14.5
|
2.1 |
0.5 |
|
|
Family income - No income - Less than 1000 - 1000-2000 - 2000-3000 - 3000-5000 |
30 10 11 1 --- |
57.7 19.2 21.2 1.9 --- |
227 49 51 8 --- |
71.9 12.7 13.2 2.1 --- |
4.7 |
0.1 |
0 19 24 6 3 |
0 36.5 46.2 11.5 5.8 |
5 102 202 65 11 |
1.3 26.5 52.5 16.9 2.9 |
4.7 |
0.3 |
|
Table (5)presents relationship between socio-demographic data of the nursing students’ parents and psychological abuse. It was illustrated that there is no a statistical significant between psychological abuse and parents education, occupation and salary. It was noticed that more than one third of mother and father education is secondary school (40.4%, 44.2% respectively) exposed to abuse. It was found that two third (71.7%) of mother’ students were house wife, while (45.5%) of father’ students were employee not exposed to abuse. It noticed that two third (71.9%) of mother’ students hadn’t income, while (52.5%) of father income from 1000 to 2000 didn’t exposed to abuse.
Table (6) relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of the nursing schools students’ and sexual, emotional abuse (n=437).
|
Emotional abuse |
Sexual abuse |
|
Variable |
|||||||||
|
P Value |
X2
|
Not Abuse N=78 |
Abused N=359 |
P Value |
X2
|
Not Abused N=428 |
Abused N=9 |
|||||
|
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
|||||
|
0.008* |
9.7 |
7.7 41 51.3 |
6 32 40 |
23.1 37 39.8 |
83 133 143 |
0.002* |
12.7 |
20.8 38.6 40.7 |
89 16 174 |
0 0 100 |
0 0 9 |
Age: - > 16 - 16-17 - 17-18 |
|
0.2 |
0.2
|
38.5 61.5 |
30 48 |
46.2 53.8 |
166 193 |
0.04* |
4.01 |
44.2 55.8 |
189 239 |
77.8 22.2 |
7 2 |
Gender - Males - Females |
|
0.5 |
0.2 |
32.1 67.9 |
25 53 |
29 71 |
104 255 |
0.8 |
0.06 |
29.4 70.6 |
126 302 |
33.3 66.9 |
3 6 |
Residence - Urban - Rural |
|
0.3 |
1.8 |
2.6 12.8 84.6 |
2 10 66 |
6.4 13.9 79.7 |
23 50 286 |
0.3 |
2.2
|
5.8 14 80.1 |
25 60 343 |
0 0 100 |
0 0 9 |
NO of sibling - One - Two - Three & more |
|
0.3 |
2.3 |
24.4 30.8 44.8 |
19 24 35 |
33.7 27.9 38.4
|
121 100 138 |
0.2 |
2.5 |
32.2 28.3 39.5 |
138 121 169
|
22.2 33.3 44.5
|
2 3 4
|
Birth order - First child - Second child - Third child Or above |
Table (6)presents relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of the nursing schools students’ and sexual, emotional abuse. It was illustrated that there is a statistical significant between age & sexual, emotional abuse (p = 0.002) (p = 0.008), gender & sexual abuse (p = 0.04), it was found that more than half (55.8%) of students was females and two third (70.6%) of them from rural area had not exposed to sexual abuse. It was found that more than half (53.8%) of students was females and (71%) from rural area had exposed to emotional abuse.
Table (7) relationship between socio-demographic data of the nursing students’ parents and sexual abuse (n=437).
|
Variable |
Mother |
Father |
||||||||||
|
Abused N=9 |
Not abused N=428 |
X2
|
P value |
Abused N=9 |
Not abused N=428 |
X2
|
P Value |
|||||
|
No |
% |
No |
% |
No |
% |
No |
% |
|||||
|
Education - Illiterate - Read and write - Secondary school - University & up
|
3 3 2 1
|
33.3 33.3 22.2 11.1
|
123 114 153 38
|
28.7 26.6 35.7 8.9
|
7.7 |
0.1 |
1 5 1 2
|
11.1 55.6 11.1 22.2
|
43 115 193 74
|
10 26.9 45.1 18
|
8.7 |
0.06 |
|
Occupation - House wife - Manual - Clerical - Professional
|
6 2 1 0
|
66.7 22.2 11.1 0
|
301 44 77 4
|
70 10.3 18 0.9
|
1.5 |
0.8 |
---- 4 4 1
|
---- 44.4 44.4 11.1
|
---- 163 194 66
|
---- 38.1 45.3 15.4
|
0.3 |
0.9 |
|
Family income - No income - Less than 1000 - 1000-2000 - 2000-3000 - 3000-5000 |
6 1 2 0 0 |
66.7 11.1 22.2 0 0 |
301 58 60 9 0 |
70.3 13.6 14 2.1 0 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
0 3 2 3 1 |
0 33.3 22.2 33.3 11.1 |
5 118 224 68 13 |
1.2 27.6 52.3 15.9 3 |
5.2 |
0.2 |
Table (7)present relationship between socio-demographic data of the nursing students’ parents and sexual abuse. It was illustrated that there is no a statistical significant between sexual abuse and parents education, occupation, and salary. It was noticed that more than one third of students’ mother and father had secondary school (35.7%, 45.1% respectively) not exposed to abuse. Also found two third (70%) of mother’ students were house wife, while (45.3%) of father’ students was employee didn’t exposed to abuse.
Table (8) relationship between socio-demographic data of the nursing students parents and emotional abuse (n=437).
|
Variable |
Mother |
Father |
||||||||||
|
Abused N=359 |
Not abused N=78 |
X2
|
P value |
Abused N=359 |
Not abused N=78 |
X2
|
P value |
|||||
|
No |
% |
No |
% |
|
No |
% |
No |
% |
||||
|
Education - Illiterate - Read and write - Secondary school - University & up
|
97 93 133 36
|
27 25.9 37 10
|
29 24 22 3
|
37.2 30.8 28.2 3.9
|
7.4 |
0.1 |
28 87 167 60
|
10.6 24.2 46.5 17.7
|
6 33 27 12
|
7.7 42.3 36.4 15.4
|
10.6 |
0.03* |
|
Occupation - House wife - Manual - Clerical - Professional
|
249 35 69 4
|
69.4 9.7 19.2 1.1
|
58 11 9 0
|
74.4 14.1 11.5 0
|
4.8 |
0.3 |
132 166 57
|
36.8 46.2 15.9
|
35 32 10
|
44.9 41 12.8
|
1.8 |
0.5 |
|
Family income - No income - Less than 1000 - 1000-2000 - 2000-3000 - 3000-5000 |
250 50 51 8 0 |
69.6 13.9 14.2 2.2 0 |
57 9 11 1 0 |
73.1 11.5 14.1 1.3 0 |
0.6 |
0.8 |
4 99 184 62 10 |
1.1 27.6 51.3 17.3 2.8 |
1 22 42 9 4 |
1.3 28.2 53.8 11.5 5.1 |
2.5 |
0.6 |
Table (8) relationship between socio-demographic data of the nursing student’s parents and emotional abuse. It showed that there is a statistical significant between Father Education & emotional abuse (p = 0.03). It was noticed that two third (69.6%) of mother’ students hadn’t income, while (51.3%) of father income from 1000 to 2000 exposed to abuse.
Table (9) relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of the nursing schools students’ and neglect (n=437).
|
P value |
X2 |
Neglect |
|
Variable |
||
|
Not abused N=77 |
Abused N=360 |
|||||
|
0.004* |
11.09 |
6.5% 44.2% 49.4% |
5 34 38 |
23.3% 36.4% 40.3% |
84 131 145 |
Age - > 16 - 16-17 - 17-18 |
|
0.1 |
1.9 |
37.7% 62.3% |
27 48 |
46.4% 53.6% |
167 193 |
Gender - Males - Females |
|
0.5 |
0.3 |
32.5% 67.5% |
25 52 |
28.9% 71.1% |
104 256 |
Residence - Urban - Rural |
|
0.07* |
0.2 |
2.6% 14.3% 83.1 |
2 10 64 |
6.4% 13.6% 80% |
23 49 288 |
Number of sibling - One - Two - Three & more |
|
0.1 |
3.4 |
23.4% 29.9% 46.7% |
18 23 36 |
33.9% 28.1% 38.1 |
122 101 137 |
Birth order - First child - Second child - Third child or above |
Table (9) present relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of the nursing schools students’ and neglect. It was illustrated that there is a statistical significant between age, number of sibling & negligence (p = 0.004 and p=0.07). It was found that more than half (53.6%) of students’ was females, two third of them (71.1%) from rural area and (80%) had three sibling and more was neglected.
Table (10) relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of the nursing schools students’ parents and neglect (n=437).
|
Variable |
Mother |
Father |
||||||||||
|
Abused N=360 |
Not abused N=77 |
X2
|
P value |
Abused N=360 |
Not abused N=77 |
X2
|
P value |
|||||
|
No |
% |
No |
% |
No |
% |
No |
% |
|||||
|
Education - Illiterate - Read and write - Secondary school - University & up
|
97 93 134 36
|
26.9 25.8 37.2 10
|
29 24 21 3
|
37.7 31.2 27.3 3.9
|
8.01 |
0.09 |
38 86 168 68
|
10.6 23.9 46.7 18.9
|
6 34 26 11
|
7.8 44.2 33.8 14.3
|
13.1 |
1.01* |
|
Occupation - House wife - Manual - Clerical - Professional
|
249 35 70 4
|
69.2 9.7 19.4 1.1
|
58 11 8 0
|
75.3 14.3 10.4 0
|
5.7 |
0.2 |
---- 132 168 56
|
---- 36.7 46.7 15.6
|
---- 35 30 11
|
---- 45.5 39 14.3
|
2.1 |
0.5 |
|
Family income - No income - Less than 1000 - 1000-2000 - 2000-3000 - 3000-5000 |
250 50 52 8 0 |
69.4 13.9 14.4 2.2 0 |
57 9 10 1 0 |
74 11.7 13 1.3 0 |
0.7 |
0.8 |
4 98 184 64 10 |
1.1 27.2 51.1 17.8 2.8 |
1 23 42 7 4 |
1.3 29.9 54.5 9.1 5.2 |
4.4 |
0.2 |
Table (10) relationship between socio-demographic characteristics of the nursing schools students’ parents and neglect. It was illustrated that there is a statistical significant between father education and neglect (p= 1.01). It was noticed that two third (69.4%) of mother’ students was no income while half (51.1%) of father’ students has income from 1000 to 2000 was neglected.
Table (13) relationship between socio-demographic data of the nursing students’ environments and physical, psychological and sexual abuse (n=437)
|
Variable |
Physical |
Psychological |
Sexual |
|||||||||||||||
|
Abused N=226 |
Not abused N=211 |
X2
|
P Value |
Abused N=52 |
Not abused N=385 |
X2
|
P value |
Abused N=9 |
Not abused N=428 |
X2
|
P value |
|||||||
|
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
|||||||
|
Housing Rented Owned |
11 215 |
4.9 95.1 |
20 191 |
9.5 90.5 |
3.5 |
0.06 |
5 47 |
9.6 90.4 |
26 359 |
6.8 93.2 |
0.5 |
0.4 |
0 9 |
0 100 |
31 397 |
7.2 92.8 |
0.7 |
0.4 |
|
Crowding index 3 persons /room& more 2 person /room 1 person / room
Mean± SD |
60
109 57 |
26.5
48.2 25.2 |
58
92 61 |
27.4
43.6 28.9 |
1.4 |
0.8 |
19
22 11 |
36.5
42.3 21.2 |
99
179 107 |
25.7
46.5 27.8 |
7.5 |
0.1 |
1
5 3 |
11.1
55.6 33.3 |
117
196 115 |
27.3
45.8 26.9 |
1.3 |
0.8 |
|
2.07±0.8 |
2.05±0.8 |
t= 0.27 |
0.7 |
2.1±1.2 |
2.1±0.8 |
t= 0.46 |
0.2 |
1.7±0.6 |
2.01±0.8 |
t= 1.01 |
0.3 |
|||||||
Table (13) presents relationship between characteristics of the nursing students’ environments and physical, psychological and sexual abuse. It was illustrated that there is no a statistical significant between total physical, psychological, sexual abuse and environment characteristics. It showed that high percentage of students had exposed to physical, psychological and sexual abuse had owned house (95.1%, 90.4%, and 100% respectively). It was found that (48.2%, 55.6% respectively) of students’ was exposed to physical, sexual abuse had two person per room.
Table (14) relationship between characteristic of the nursing students’ environments and emotional abuse, neglect (n=437).
|
Variables
|
Emotional |
Neglect |
||||||||||
|
Abused N=359 |
Not abuse N=78 |
X2
|
P value |
Abused N=360 |
Not abused N=77 |
X2
|
P value |
|||||
|
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
NO |
% |
|||||
|
Housing Rented Owned |
18 341 |
5 95 |
13 65 |
16.7 83.3 |
13.2 |
0.001* |
19 341 |
5.3 94.7 |
12 65 |
15.6 84.4 |
10.2 |
0.001* |
|
Crowding index 3 persons /room& more 2 person /room 1 person / room
Mean± SD |
89
166 104 |
24.8
46.2 29 |
29
35 14 |
37.3
44.9 17.9 |
12.7 |
0.01* |
90
165 105 |
25
45.8 29.2 |
28
36 13 |
36.4
46.8 16.9 |
12.7 |
0.01* |
|
2.01±9.8
|
2.2±9.8 |
t=2.4 |
0.01* |
1.8±0.8 |
2.2±0.8 |
t=2.07 |
0.03* |
|||||
Table (14) presents relationship between characteristic of the nursing students’ environments and emotional abuse, neglect. It was illustrated that there is a statistical significant between environmental characteristic and both emotional abuse, neglect. It was found that high percentage (95%, 94.7% respectively) of students’ had owned house. Also more than one third of them (46.2%, 45.8% respectively) had two persons per room was exposed to emotional abuse and neglect
Discussion
Regarding knowledge about negligence and abuse. This study revealed that more than half (51.7%) of students had correct answer about family abuse, more than third of students (41.6 %) don’t know about types of family abuse as shown in table (3) This finding may be explained that despite students had knowledge about negligence they exposed to it. It was in agreement with Lundberg et al, 2014 who reported that half of the students had correct answer about family abuse and nearly half of students (48%) had little knowledge about types of family abuse. In contrast Lundblad et al, 2017 reported that the highest percentage of students (88%) had more knowledge about definition and types of family abuse. Also these findings are contrary with Macdonald, et al, 2015 who found that about more than half of the students had more knowledge about types of family abuse.
Also this study revealed that students’ total score of knowledge about family abuse and negligence as shown in figure (3). It revealed that (66%) of the students have satisfied knowledge about family abuse and one third percentage (34%) had unsatisfied knowledge about family abuse and negligence. This finding was in agreement with Smolak, et al, 2016 who reported that more than half (58%) of the students were knowledgeable about family abuse. Similarly Sprusinska, 2014 which reported that more than two third (81%) of students were knowledgeable about family abuse. In contrast LeBrun et al , 2015 reported that more than half of students (57%) hadn’t knowledge about family abuse.
Also this result revealed that the majority (85.6 %) of the students have scientific source of knowledge about family abuse as shown in table (3). This result may be explained that most of students have satisfactory knowledge about abuse and negligence as a general. This finding was in agreement with Bandura et al, 2017 who reported that two thirds of the students were knowledgeable about family abuse. Similarly, Belsky et al, 2016 reported that more than two third of students were knowledgeable about family abuse. In contrast Benedict et al, 2016 reported that nearly half of students (47%) hadn’t knowledge about family abuse. Also these findings are contrary with Cole et al, 2014 who found that about more than half of the students had incorrect knowledge about family abuse.
Also this study revealed that total score of child trauma questioner. It revealed that more than half (66%) of the students’ had exposed to abuse and neglect from their families as shown in figure (4). This may be explained that high percentage of our children suffer from abuse and negligence which indicate that we should change our- believes, thoughts and ways of dealing with our children. Similarly Sprusinska et al, 2016 reported that more than two thirds (72%) of students were abused and neglected from their families. In contrast Smolak, L et al, 2014 found that more than half (57%) of students weren’t receive any negligence from their parents. Also these findings are contrary with Kring et al, 2018 who found that only quarter of the students were abused and neglected from their parents.
Also this study revealed that there is a statistical significant correlation between father salary and physical abuse (p = 0.01) as shown in table (6). Similarly Maniglio et al, 2017 reported that there is a statistical significant correlation between parent’s income and physical abuse. In contrast McAdoo et al, 2015 reported that there is no a statistical significant correlation between total physical abuse and family income. Also the present study will confirmed that (65.5%) of mothers were housewife, (46.5%) of fathers were employee. Also it was in agreement with Krisinformation et al, 2014 who cited that two third of mothers of the subjects were house wife and their fathers were employee. Conversely Köhler, et al, 2015 reported that the highest percentage of both parents (91%) were employee.
Regarding relation between socio-demographic and psychological abuse among the studied students this study revealed that there is a statistical significant correlation between age & psychological abuse (p = 0.02) study revealed that while females was more than half (54.5%), study delineated that number of sibling three and more was (79.2%). Also the present study delineated that more than half of students’ parents (46.2%) had moderate income, the highest percentage (90.4%) of them owned house and more than half of students (42.3%) were living as two persons per room as shown in table (5). Similarly McLennan et al, 2016 which reported that Age is a major factor among psychological abuse. In contrast Murthi et al, 2014 reported that there is no a statistical significant correlation between age and psychological abuse, This finding was in agreement with Ager et al, 2014 who reported that more than half (58%) of the students was females. In contrast with Boothby et al, 2014 reported that males were the highest percentage. These findings were in agreement with Bryman et al, 2015 who cited that number of sibling were five. Conversely Stockholm et al, 2014 reported that number of sibling was less than three. This finding was in agreement with Landgren et al, 2017 who reported that highly percentage of the parents had moderate income, owned house. In contrast Leviner et al, 2017 cited that the highest percentage of parents had high income.
Concerning relation between socio-demographic and sexual abuse among the studied students this study revealed that there is a statistical significant correlation between age & sexual abuse (p = 0.002) and sex & sexual abuse (p = 0.04). Also the present study delineated that number of sibling three and more was (100%) as shown in table (8). Similarly Neumann et al, 2017 which reported that sex and age are main factors among sexual abuse. In contrast Pazdera et al, 2015 reported that there is no a statistical significant correlation between sex and sexual abuse. The current study supported by Cocozza et al, 2017 who mentioned in their studies that number of sibling were more than five. Also these findings are contrary with Gilbert et al, 2015 who found that number of sibling was two siblings.
Also the present study delineated that (22.2%) of father income had from 1000 to 2000 pound salary, the highest percentage (100%) of them owned house and more than half of students (55.6%) were living as two persons per room as shown in table (9). This finding was in agreement with LeBrun et al, 2018 reported that half of students had parents had moderate income, owned house. Also these findings are contrary with Losoncz, et al, 2018 who found that about quarter (31%) of the parents had high income with four persons per room.
Regarding relation between socio-demographic and negligence among the studied students this study revealed that there is a statistical significant correlation between age & negligence (p = 0.004) and Father education & negligence (p = 0.01) Also The present study revealed that more than half of abused students was females as shown in table (11) . Similarly Radloff et al, 2018 which reported that illiterate parents always neglect their children. In contrast Rind, et al, 2016 reported that there is no statistical significant correlation between age & Father Education and negligence.
This study revealed that there is a statistical significant correlation between housing & negligence (p =0.001) and Crowding index & negligence (p =0.01) as shown in table (14). Similarly Rumstein et al, 2016 which reported that poor housing is a major problem lead to negligence In contrast Seltmann et al, 2014 reported that there is no statistical significant correlation between crowding and negligence.
Conclusion
Considering the results of the present study and the available evidence, it can be concluded that more than half of the students have satisfactory knowledge about family abuse and one third percentage had unsatisfactory knowledge about family abuse majority of students were emotionally abused and neglected so this results indicate that there is a large wide gap between their knowledge and their behaviors regarding child abuse and negligence.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the current study it was recommended that:-
Recommendations related to parents
1) Greater attention should be given to monitor and closely observe parents performance regarding child abuse.
2) Parents' educational needs must be addressed to determine their needs for continuing education programs.
3) Providing training courses regarding child abuse and negligence for parents and students.
Recommendations for furthers researches
1) 1Replication of the study on a larger probability sample from different geographical areas in Egypt to obtain more generalizable data.
2) Future studies have to be carried out in order to assess factors associated with their abuse and negligence.
3) Providing hot line telephone number to child who exposed to abuse or negligence to provide help.
)
View on SCiNiTO