Debate and Argument Who Participates in Child Sexual Abuse Research?

Abstract

As a team working in a child sex abuse project, we are interested in recent relevant research; we are particularly interested in the interface between clinician and researcher, and the difficulties inherent in undertaking research as part of therapy. A recent publication (Steier, 1991) and our own clinical experience have made us aware of the extent to which the particular curiosities, or even passion of the researcher can influence the outcome of the research in ways that the researcher is often unaware of. . The conclusion of the article is that the most dysfunctional families were least likely to participate in research. We felt that this conclusion was not justified on the basis of the evidence offered. In the study, 45% of families who met inclusion criteria for the study participated in the research. Ofthe nonparticipants, 25% declined to participate; 75% were not invited to participate on the basis of the Social Worker's view of the families likely response to the invitation.The conclusion of the study, in our view, should therefore include an understanding of how the social workers made their decisions on whether or not to offer research participation to families. Mention is made of the fact that in 25% of the cases where participation was not invited, the reason was "Social workers uncertainty or resistance to research". It seems unfair to label these families dysfunctional since the only information we are given about them seems to be that their social workers had a negative attitude towards research.

Psychosocial problems of children whose parents visit the emergency department due to intimate partner violence, substance abuse or a suicide attempt

“…Furthermore, of all eligible families, 8% refused to be examined at the outpatient pediatric department, and another 17% was examined but refused study participation. Because reports in literature have been mixed, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the influence of refusal of treatment (Koverola et al ; Lau and Weisz ; Miller et al ) or study participation (Lynch et al ; Feehan et al ; Jud et al ) on our results. Known baseline characteristics between our participants and non‐participants were similar, except for an overrepresentation of single parent households for participants.…”

Follow‐up protocol was useful for children whose parents attended emergency departments after partner violence, substance abuse or a suicide attempt

“…Of the families who took part in the follow-up assessment, 21% reported that no mandatory or voluntary services had been involved with themselves or any of their children at any time. This might have been due to selection bias as it is possible that families with fewer problems were more inclined to participate in the study, although reports in the literature are mixed (21)(22)(23). However, after the emergency visit, the proportion of families and children not involved with or referred to mandatory or voluntary services were comparable.…”

Methodological challenges in following up patients of a hospital child protection team: is there a recruitment bias?

“…On what basis the social workers made their decision was not reported. In response to that article, Feehan et al [7] concluded that the evidence presented did not justify labeling these families dysfunctional, which makes the results difficult to interpret. As the results of maltreatment research may be biased by differences in participants, there is a need for analyses of participant characteristics.…”