Question · asked by 1 review
Child protection training for professionals to improve reporting of child abuse and neglect vs no training, waitlist control, or alternative training not related to child abuse and neglect (primary outcomes): Skill in distinguishing between reportable and non‐reportable child abuse and neglect cases Measured by: professionals’ performance on simulated cases scored by trained and blinded expert panel Time of outcome assessment: short term (postintervent...
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Child protection training for professionals to improve reporting of child abuse and neglect vs no training, waitlist control, or alternative training not related to child abuse and neglect (secondary outcomes) Skill in distinguishing between reportable and non‐reportable child abuse and neglect cases Measured by: professionals’ performance on simulated cases scored by trained and blinded expert panel Time of outcome assessment: short term (postintervent... · postqualified professionals, including elementary and high school teachers, childcare professionals, medical… Child protection training for professionals to improve reporting of child abuse and neglect (2022) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Child protection training for professionals to improve reporting of child abuse and neglect 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | list not extracted yet | Not assessed |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.