J T Lau1, J L Liu, A Yu, C K Wong. 1. Centre for Clinical Trails and Epidemiological Research, Faculty of Medicine, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To understand the conceptualization of child abuse and attitudes on reporting behaviors of Hong Kong adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional telephone survey of 1,001 randomly selected subjects. MAIN RESULTS: There is a discrepancy between perceived prevalence and the ability to name different child abuse types without prompting: 79.9% named physical abuse, while 41.2% felt it was common: 21.0% named child neglect, while 76.9% felt it was common; 13.4% named psychological abuse, while 47.4% felt it was common; 6.8% named sexual abuse, while 23.5% felt it was common. Most respondents classified severe physical abuse situations as abusive (e.g., "severely injuring a child"). Other scenarios such as "mildly injuring a child" and neglect and psychological abuse scenarios (e.g., "leaving a young child alone at home" and "shouting at a child often") were often not classified as abusive. As regards case-reporting behavior, only about 40% would report abuse cases to authorities. Those who would not report abuse were less likely to classify abuse situations as abusive and more likely to think that seeking help is difficult, troublesome and unhelpful. CONCLUSIONS: The official reported prevalence figures for child abuse in Hong Kong should be interpreted with care, because underreporting is likely to be serious. Hong Kong people's conceptualization and awareness of what comprises child abuse is found to differ from official definitions. They are reluctant to report abuse cases, due to their perceived low efficacy of case reporting. Both the difference in conceptualization and the reluctance to report might partly be attributable to Chinese culture.
OBJECTIVE: To understand the conceptualization of child abuse and attitudes on reporting behaviors of Hong Kong adults. METHODS: Cross-sectional telephone survey of 1,001 randomly selected subjects. MAIN RESULTS: There is a discrepancy between perceived prevalence and the ability to name different child abuse types without prompting: 79.9% named physical abuse, while 41.2% felt it was common: 21.0% named child neglect, while 76.9% felt it was common; 13.4% named psychological abuse, while 47.4% felt it was common; 6.8% named sexual abuse, while 23.5% felt it was common. Most respondents classified severe physical abuse situations as abusive (e.g., "severely injuring a child"). Other scenarios such as "mildly injuring a child" and neglect and psychological abuse scenarios (e.g., "leaving a young child alone at home" and "shouting at a child often") were often not classified as abusive. As regards case-reporting behavior, only about 40% would report abuse cases to authorities. Those who would not report abuse were less likely to classify abuse situations as abusive and more likely to think that seeking help is difficult, troublesome and unhelpful. CONCLUSIONS: The official reported prevalence figures for child abuse in Hong Kong should be interpreted with care, because underreporting is likely to be serious. Hong Kong people's conceptualization and awareness of what comprises child abuse is found to differ from official definitions. They are reluctant to report abuse cases, due to their perceived low efficacy of case reporting. Both the difference in conceptualization and the reluctance to report might partly be attributable to Chinese culture.