Surveying paediatricians’ assessment of childhood bruising patterns

Accidental linear mark from ruler edge Accidental bruise 0 (0) 28 (44.4) 29 (46.1) 6 (9.5) [chi]2 analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference between subgroups (years' experience, grade, area of practice and child protection training level). p Value ranges from 0.95 to 0.99. [...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archives of disease in childhood 2017-12, Vol.102 (12), p.1186-1187
Main Authors: Course, Christopher William, Mott, Alison, Tuthill, David
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Child
Child abuse & neglect
Child Abuse - diagnosis
Child Health
Children
Children & youth
Childrens health
Contusions - diagnosis
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Pediatricians - statistics & numerical data
Practice Patterns, Physicians' - statistics & numerical data
Preschool Children
Provenance
Risk factors
Social services
Surveys and Questionnaires
Training
Young Children
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Accidental linear mark from ruler edge Accidental bruise 0 (0) 28 (44.4) 29 (46.1) 6 (9.5) [chi]2 analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference between subgroups (years' experience, grade, area of practice and child protection training level). p Value ranges from 0.95 to 0.99. [...]despite a high level of child protection training amongst participants there was considerable variation of opinion, even in those scenarios with bruising patterns more typical of child abuse. In practice, paediatricians have more information available, including presence of other risk factors and previous contact with social services.
ISSN:0003-9888
1468-2044
DOI:10.1136/archdischild-2017-313449