What factors increase Dutch child health care professionals’ adherence to a national guideline on preventing child abuse and neglect?
Open accessAbstract
Guidelines to support health care professionals in early detection of, and responses to, suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN) have become increasingly widely available. Yet little is known about professionals' adherence to these guidelines or the determinants that affect their uptake. This study used a cross-sectional design to assess the adherence of Dutch Child Health Care (CHC) professionals to seven key activities described in a national guideline on preventing CAN. This study also examined the presence and strengths of determinants of guideline adherence. Online questionnaires were filled in between May and July 2013 by 164 CHC professionals. Adherence was defined as the extent to which professionals performed each of seven key activities when they suspected CAN. Thirty-three determinants were measured in relation to the guideline, the health professional, the organisational context and the socio-political context. Bivariate and multivariate regression analyses tested associations between determinants and guideline adherence. Most of the responding CHC professionals were aware of the guideline and its content (83.7%). Self-reported rates of full adherence varied between 19.5% and 42.7%. Stronger habit to use the guideline was the only determinant associated with higher adherence rates in the multivariate analysis. Understanding guideline adherence and associated determinants is essential for developing implementation strategies that can stimulate adherence. Although CHC professionals in this sample were aware of the guideline, they did not always adhere to its key recommended activities. To increase adherence, tailored interventions should primarily focus on enhancing habit strength.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The barrier questionnaire used is based on the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI), a Dutch validated questionnaire developed by Fleuren et al. and used in several Dutch studies.
“The used questionnaire was based on the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations (MIDI), a Dutch validated questionnaire developed by Fleuren et al. [31] and used in several Dutch studies [37,38].”
From The Healthy Primary School of the Future: A Contextual Action-Oriented Research Approach (2018) · cites this paper as [37]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 28
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Committee on Child Maltreatment Research, Policy, and Practice for the Next Decade, Phase II, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Committee on Law and Justice, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, Petersen, A. C., Joseph, J., & Feit, M. (2014). New directions in child abuse and neglect research, 4. Consequences of child abuse and neglect. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US).
- Grol, R., Wensing, M., Eccles, M., & Davis, D. (2013). Improving patient care. The implementation of change in health care (2nd revised edition). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
- Authors
- Konijnendijk, A. A. J., Boere-Boonekamp, M. M., Fleuren, M. A. H., Haasnoot, M. E., & Need, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Twente (NL)
- Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (NL)
- GGD Twente (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Konijnendijk, Annemieke A.J.
- Venue
- Child Abuse & Neglect
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-03
- Volume
- 53
- Pages
- 118-127
- ISSN
- 0145-2134 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2190743845
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 1.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Child Abuse & Neglect (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
- Repository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- University of Twente Research Information (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- ZonMw (159010003)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Child Abuse and Related Trauma
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- child abuse, guideline adherence, early detection of child abuse, child protection, habit strength, implementation strategies, organizational context, sociopolitical context
- MeSH terms
- Child Protective Services, Child, Child Abuse, Child Health Services, Cross-Sectional Studies, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Netherlands, Professional Practice, Surveys and Questionnaires, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Guideline Adherence, Secondary Prevention, Self Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review