RESUMEN
The obligation to protect children is defined by law. However, there is fragility in identifying actual or potential situations that jeopardize their development. This review aims to identify the family risk factors that jeopardize child development. A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute for Evidence-Based Practice framework and the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. The research was carried out on the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, Nursing & Allied Health Collection: Comprehensive, MEDLINE Complete, and MedicLatina, with a time limit of 2010 to 2021. The search was restricted to documents written in Portuguese, English, and French. A total of 3998 articles were initially identified. After selecting and analysing, 28 risk factors were extracted from 29 articles. Four categories of risk factors were identified-namely, patterns of social and economic interaction, family characteristics, caregiver's characteristics, and parenting. The results of this review allow the identification of family risk factors that jeopardize child development. This is significant for Child Protective Services workers as they carry out their risk assessments. This assessment is the first step in avoiding an accumulation of harm to at-risk children and allowing the development of interventions for minimising harm's impact on children's development.
RESUMEN
Resumo Enquadramento: Assistir crianças em situação de risco e/ou perigo exige uma avaliação criteriosa, que conduza a uma decisão sustentada e coerente. Objetivos: Identificar os fatores de risco dos cuidadores que colocam em perigo as crianças e jovens referenciados à Comissão Proteção de Crianças e Jovens (CPCJ). Metodologia: Este estudo descritivo de abordagem qualitativa, realizado entre outubro e dezembro de 2018 teve como amostra 20 processos de crianças/jovens referenciados a uma CPCJ. A informação recolhida dos processos foi analisada através da técnica de Bardin. Resultados: Como cuidadores surgem os progenitores (54%), sendo a negligência a problemática mais elevada das crianças sinalizadas à CPCJ. Quanto aos fatores de risco, destacam-se as condições financeiras da família; necessidades inerentes ao desenvolvimento da criança e os métodos de disciplina; problemas comunicacionais; problemas de saúde mental e a ausência de suporte da família alargada, seguida dos padrões de relação familiares. Conclusão: Identificaram-se fatores de risco que poderão permitir a construção de um instrumento para uma avaliação concertada e consequente medida adequada às necessidades das famílias.
Abstract Background: Helping children at risk or in danger requires careful assessment to make a sustained and coherent decision. Objectives: To identify caregiver-related risk factors that jeopardize the lives of children and young people referred to a Commission for the Protection of Children and Young People (CPCJ). Methodology: This descriptive exploratory study with a qualitative approach was conducted between October and December 2018 with a sample of 20 case files of children/young people referred to a CPCJ. The information collected from the case files was analyzed using Bardin's technique. Results: The majority of caregivers are the parents (54%). Neglect was the most common problem among the children referred to the CPCJ. The following risk factors were highlighted: the family's financial conditions; needs inherent to the child's development; discipline methods; communication problems; mental health problems; lack of extended family support; and family relationship patterns. Conclusion: Risk factors were identified that could contribute to the development of an instrument for a concerted assessment adjusted to the families' needs.
Resumen Marco contextual: Asistir a los niños en situaciones de riesgo y/o peligro requiere una evaluación cuidadosa, que conduzca a una decisión fundamentada y coherente. Objetivos: Identificar los factores de riesgo de los cuidadores que ponen en peligro a los niños y jóvenes remitidos a la Comisión de Protección de los Niños y los Jóvenes (CPCJ, por sus siglas en portugués). Metodología: Este estudio descriptivo exploratorio de enfoque cualitativo, realizado entre octubre y diciembre de 2018, tuvo como muestra 20 casos de niños/jóvenes remitidos a una CPCJ. La información recogida en los procesos se analizó mediante la técnica de Bardin. Resultados: Como cuidadores surgen los progenitores (54%), y es la falta de cuidado el mayor problema de los niños remitidos a la CPCJ. En cuanto a los factores de riesgo, cabe destacar las condiciones económicas de la familia; las necesidades inherentes al desarrollo del niño y los métodos de disciplina; los problemas de comunicación; los problemas de salud mental y la falta de apoyo de la familia extensa, seguida de los patrones de relación familiares. Conclusión: Se identificaron factores de riesgo que podrían permitir la construcción de un instrumento para una evaluación concertada y la consiguiente medida adecuada a las necesidades de los hogares.
RESUMEN
Background: International research has shown that healthcare professionals (HCPs) and nonhealthcare professionals (NHCPs) are unaware of the goals and purposes of palliative care. This study evaluates the knowledge of palliative care among a sample of Portuguese adults and correlates their level of knowledge with age, gender, profession, and experience of family member's palliative care. Method: A cross-sectional online survey was carried out on a sample of 152 HCPs and 440 NHCPs who completed an anonymous questionnaire of sociodemographic, family, and professional data, and an instrument of 26 dichotomous (true or false) questions focusing on palliative care goals and purposes. Results: The 592 participants had a mean age of 31.3 ± 11.1 years, and most were female. Statistically significant differences between statements considered as correct by HCPs and NHCPs were found in 24 statements; HCPs had the highest percentage of correct answers. The terms most frequently associated with palliative care mentioned by NHCPs were chronic and progressive disease (n = 76), while HCPs mostly mentioned quality-of-life promotion (n = 29). Women, the elderly, and HCPs had a higher level of knowledge regarding palliative care (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Results clearly show gaps in knowledge of palliative care, especially among NHCPs. An integrated approach is needed to inform and clarify the philosophy and goals of palliative care in different settings in order to improve knowledge.