低龄儿童家长应对儿童性侵犯的行为反应及影响因素

徐英; 郭艳芳; 李志学; 李毅文; 马艳; 赵仁成; 何向阳; 邓晓; 彭绩; 雷林; 刘峥

doi:10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.02.020

低龄儿童家长应对儿童性侵犯的行为反应及影响因素

doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.02.020

徐英¹,
郭艳芳¹,
李志学¹,
李毅文¹,
马艳¹,
赵仁成¹,
何向阳¹,
邓晓²,
彭绩³,
雷林³,
刘峥^1, ,

1.
广东省深圳市宝安区慢性病防治院慢性病综合防制科，518101
2.
中国疾病预防控制中心慢性非传染性疾病预防控制中心伤害防控与心理健康室
3.
深圳市慢性病防治中心肿瘤与伤害防控科

基金项目:

深圳市卫计委项目 SZGW2018007

宝安区科技创新局项目 2018JD035

详细信息

作者简介:
徐英(1979-)，女，江西临川人，博士，副主任医师，主要从事慢性非传染性疾病预防与控制工作

通讯作者:
刘峥，E-mail：15331952@qq.com

中图分类号: R 193 R 179 G 78
计量
- 文章访问数: 674
- HTML全文浏览量: 363
- PDF下载量: 27
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2020-08-07
- 修回日期: 2020-11-01
- 网络出版日期: 2021-04-06
- 刊出日期: 2021-02-25

Responses to child sexual assaults and associated factors among parents of young children

1.
Department of NCD Comprehensive Control, Shenzhen Baoan Center for Chronic Disease Control, Shenzhen (518101), Guangdong Province, China

摘要

摘要: 目的分析低龄儿童家长应对儿童性侵犯事件的可能行为反应及潜在影响因素，为开展儿童性侵犯预防教育提供依据。方法利用“2016—2020年儿童伤害预防项目”基线调查的部分数据，采用χ²检验、Logistic回归分析等方法分析小学三年级以下儿童家长的行为反应特征及其相关影响因素。结果共纳入4 072名儿童家长进行分析，其中86.8%的家长选择“陪伴解决”，51.0%家长带孩子看“心理医生”，4.9%家长“责备孩子太不小心”，2.9%家长选择“让孩子不要声张此事”，6.5%的家长选择“其他”应对方式。外籍、文化程度越低(OR=0.26~0.64)的家长倾向“责备”孩子；母亲、文化程度越高(OR=0.27~0.72)的家长越不鼓励孩子“勿声张”；母亲、年龄越高的孩子(OR=1.33~1.78)、家长文化程度较高(OR=1.65~2.99)的家长倾向“陪伴解决”；≥30岁、高中/技校/中专文化程度的家长倾向带孩子看“心理医生”。结论家长比较重视性侵犯事件后的儿童身心健康，但仍有部分家长采取“责备”和“勿声张”的消极应对方式；家长角色、文化程度、亲子交流时长和儿童年龄情况是影响家长行为反应特征的主要因素。需进一步加强预防儿童性侵犯二次伤害的教育，同时充分考虑受教育对象的特征。
- 法定监护人 /
- 性 /
- 暴力 /
- 行为 /
- 回归分析 /
- 儿童
Abstract: Objective To analyze the possible responses of parents of young children to Child sexual assault (CSA) and the potential influencing factors, so as to provide evidence for prevention programs of CSA. Methods Part of the data from "2016-2020 Child Injury Prevention Project" was used to analyze responses to CSA among parents of children younger than 3rd grade in primary school by chi-square test and Logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 4 072 parents were included in the analysis. Among them, 86.8% of parents chose "to solve problems together", 51.0% of parents taking children to a "psychologist", 4.9% of parents "scolding children for being too careless", 2.9% of parents "letting child not disclose abuse" and 6.5% of parents chose "other" coping methods. Parents with foreign nationality and lower education level (OR=0.26-0.64) tend to "blame" their children. Mothers, higher parental education level (OR=0.27-0.72) were more reluctant to encourage their children to keep quiet. Mothers, older children (OR=1.33-1.78) and parents with higher education level (OR=1.65-2.99) tend to "accompany". Parents aged 30 or more, and from high school/technical school/technical secondary school tend to take their children to see a "psychologist". Conclusion Parents universally pay attention to the physical and mental health of children after CSA, but some parents still take negative coping methods, e.g. "blame" and "not disclose". Parenting educational level, duration of parent-child communication and age of children are primary factors associated with parental responses to child sexual assault. This study suggests that prevention secondary injury following child sexual assault should be farther strengthened, while fully considering the characteristics of the educated objects.
- Legal guardians /
- Sex /
- Violence /
- Behavior /
- Regression analysis /
- Child

HTML全文

表 1 应对儿童性侵犯后的家长行为反应单因素分析

Table 1. Behavior responses to child sexual abuse of parents and children with different demographic characteristics

变量	选项	人数	统计值	责备	勿声张	陪伴解决	心理医生	报警	教授方法	强调隐私
家长角色	父亲	446		33(7.4)	24(5.4)	358(80.3)	241(54.0)	14(3.1)	4(0.9)	2(0.4)
	母亲	3 630		167(4.6)	94(2.6)	3 179(87.6)	1 837(50.6)	61(1.7)	87(2.4)	45(1.2)
			χ²值	6.67	11.01	18.48	1.87	4.68	4.09	2.18
			P值	0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.17	0.03	0.04	0.14
儿童年龄	未上学	544		17(3.1)	16(2.9)	450(82.7)	247(45.4)	5(0.9)	9(1.7)	9(1.7)
	幼儿园	527		11(2.1)	5(0.9)	486(92.2)	282(53.5)	18(3.4)	18(3.4)	13(2.5)
	小学一至三年级	3 005		172(5.7)	97(3.2)	2 601(86.6)	1 549(51.5)	52(1.7)	64(2.1)	25(0.8)
			χ²值	16.98	8.29	21.54	8.51	10.00	4.37	11.90
			P值	< 0.01	0.02	< 0.01	0.01	0.01	0.11	0.00
儿童户籍	本地	1 484		47(3.2)	30(2.0)	1 333(89.8)	767(51.7)	27(1.8)	36(2.4)	17(1.1)
	本省外地	1 112		70(6.3)	41(3.7)	945(85.0)	586(52.7)	22(2.0)	22(2.0)	10(0.9)
	外省	1 383		71(5.1)	43(3.1)	1 181(85.4)	683(49.4)	24(1.7)	32(2.3)	18(1.3)
	外籍	97		12(12.4)	4(4.1)	78(80.4)	42(43.3)	2(2.1)	1(1.0)	2(2.1)
			χ²值	25.95	7.26	20.86	5.31	0.23	1.27	1.60
			P值	< 0.01	0.06	< 0.01	0.15	0.97	0.74	0.66
家长年龄/岁	< 30	529		24(4.5)	17(3.2)	441(83.4)	227(42.9)	9(1.7)	18(3.4)	13(2.5)
	30~ < 40	2 982		139(4.7)	80(2.7)	2 609(87.5)	1 567(52.5)	54(1.8)	60(2.0)	33(1.1)
	≥40	565		37(6.5)	21(3.7)	487(86.2)	284(50.3)	12(2.1)	13(2.3)	1(0.2)
			χ²值	3.81	2.03	6.86	16.83	0.32	3.99	12.68
			P值	0.15	0.36	0.03	< 0.01	0.85	0.14	0.00
家长文化程度	小学及以下	156		20(12.8)	11(7.1)	118(75.6)	63(40.4)	1(0.6)	7(4.5)	2(1.3)
	初中	1 090		76(7.0)	48(4.4)	910(83.5)	523(48.0)	14(1.3)	21(1.9)	7(0.6)
	高中/技校/中专	1 262		64(5.1)	36(2.9)	1 106(87.6)	706(55.9)	27(2.1)	24(1.9)	22(1.7)
	大专	902		25(2.8)	14(1.6)	795(88.1)	448(49.7)	16(1.8)	28(3.1)	13(1.4)
	大学本科及以上	666		15(2.3)	9(1.4)	608(91.3)	338(50.8)	17(2.6)	11(1.7)	3(0.5)
			χ²值	49.85	29.85	41.24	24.00	5.63	8.90	9.92
			P值	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.23	0.064	0.04
每天亲子交流时	从不	11		2(18.2)	4(36.4)	8(72.7)	6(54.5)	0	1(9.1)	0
长/min	< 10	152		18(11.8)	6(3.9)	125(82.2)	57(37.5)	0	3(2.0)	1(0.7)
	10~	804		35(4.4)	30(3.7)	697(86.7)	403(50.1)	12(1.5)	15(1.9)	9(1.1)
	30~	965		52(5.4)	23(2.4)	843(87.4)	519(53.8)	21(2.2)	17(1.8)	12(1.2)
	60~	2 144		93(4.3)	55(2.6)	1 864(86.9)	1 093(51.0)	42(2.0)	55(2.6)	25(1.2)
			χ²值	22.32	48.16	4.96	14.38	4.37	4.98	0.54
			P值	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.29	< 0.01	0.36	0.29	0.97
亲子交流方式	不交流	11		2(18.2)	4(36.4)	8(72.7)	6(54.5)	0	1(9.1)	0
	主动	951		61(6.4)	32(3.4)	780(82.0)	463(48.7)	14(1.5)	15(1.6)	8(0.8)
	被动	74		5(6.8)	2(2.7)	68(91.9)	29(39.2)	1(1.4)	0	2(2.7)
	双方主动	3 040		132(4.3)	80(2.6)	2 681(88.2)	1 580(52.0)	60(2.0)	75(2.5)	37(1.2)
			χ²值	11.41	45.34	27.64	7.38	1.32	6.70	2.61
			P值	0.01	< 0.01	< 0.01	0.06	0.73	0.08	0.46
合计		4 076		200(4.9)	118(2.9)	3 537(86.8)	2 078(51.0)	75(1.8)	91(2.2)	47(1.2)
注：()内数字为报告率/%。

下载: 导出CSV

表 2 家长行为反应特征影响因素的多因素Logistic回归分析

Table 2. Multivariate Logistic regression analysis of influencing factors of parents' response to child sexual abuse

自变量	选项	责备	勿声张	陪伴解决	心理医生
家长角色	父亲	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	母亲	0.71(0.47~1.07)	0.54(0.33~0.90)	1.73(1.32~2.27)	0.86(0.70~1.05)
儿童年龄	未上学	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	幼儿园	0.94(0.42~2.09)	0.42(0.15~1.21)	1.78(1.18~2.68)	1.21(0.94~1.56)
	小学一至三年级	1.61(0.92~2.80)	0.90(0.49~1.65)	1.33(1.00~1.76)	1.11(0.91~1.37)
儿童户籍	本地	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	本省外地	1.25(0.81~1.93)	1.07(0.61~1.86)	0.85(0.65~1.12)	1.04(0.87~1.25)
	外省	1.12(0.74~1.71)	0.98(0.57~1.68)	0.87(0.68~1.13)	0.93(0.79~1.10)
	外籍	2.58(1.25~5.15)	1.26(0.42~3.81)	0.61(0.35~1.06)	0.73(0.48~1.12)
家长年龄/岁	< 30	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	30~ < 40	1.00(0.61~1.60)	0.91(0.51~1.63)	1.19(0.9~1.57)	1.39(1.14~1.71)
	≥40	1.17(0.65~2.09)	0.95(0.45~1.98)	1.26(0.87~1.82)	1.29(1.00~1.67)
家长文化程度	小学及以下	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	初中	0.64(0.36~1.11)	0.72(0.34~1.54)	1.65(1.09~2.51)	1.36(0.96~1.92)
	高中/技校/中专	0.50(0.28~0.88)	0.52(0.24~1.12)	2.16(1.42~3.30)	1.79(1.26~2.53)
	大专	0.30(0.15~0.58)	0.30(0.12~0.73)	2.10(1.34~3.29)	1.35(0.94~1.94)
	大学本科及以上	0.26(0.12~0.82)	0.27(0.10~0.75)	2.99(1.80~4.97)	1.36(0.93~2.00)
每天亲子交流时长	< 10	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
/min	10~	0.42(0.23~0.77)	1.12(0.45~2.77)	1.21(0.75~1.94)	1.54(1.07~2.21)
	30~	0.62(0.34~1.12)	0.80(0.31~2.06)	1.14(0.71~1.84)	1.73(1.21~2.49)
	60~	0.59(0.33~1.05)	0.96(0.39~2.37)	1.03(0.65~1.63)	1.58(1.11~2.25)
亲子交流方式	不交流	1.00	1.00	1.00	1.00
	主动	0.91(0.34~2.40)	0.73(0.17~3.20)	2.52(1.06~5.99)	0.73(0.45~1.20)
	被动	0.72(0.52~1.01)	0.94(0.60~1.46)	1.45(1.18~1.80)	1.07(0.92~1.25)

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(21)

[1]	赵会杰, 马梅, 朱克修, 等. 当前儿童性侵犯研究现状及进展[J]. 国外医学(医学地理分册), 2018, 39(1): 85-88. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8883.2018.01.027 ZHAO H J, MA M, ZHU K X, et al. A review of current status and progress of child sexual abuse[J]. Foreign Med Sci(Sect Medgeog), 2018, 39(1): 85-88. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8883.2018.01.027
[2]	庞晓华, 黄艳. 性侵犯受害儿童生命历程的影响因素模型构建: 基于扎根理论的探索性研究[J]. 社会工作, 2018(5): 87-99. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SHGO201805008.htm PANG X H, HUANG Y. Model construction of Influencing factors on the life course of child victims of sexual assault an exploratory study based on grounded theory[J]. J Soc Work, 2018(5): 87-99. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SHGO201805008.htm
[3]	王金娜, 何平先. 儿童性虐待流行病学研究进展[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2012, 33(1): 126-128. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XIWS201201062.htm WANG J N, HE P X. Progress in the epidemiological study of child sexual abuse[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2012, 33(1): 126-128. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XIWS201201062.htm
[4]	王小红, 桂莲. 国内儿童性侵犯问题研究综述[J]. 乐山师范学院学报, 2014, 29(10): 131-135. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8666.2014.10.029 WANG X H, GUI L. Review of Domestic Researches on Child Sexual Abuse[J]. J Leshan Normal University, 2014, 29(10): 131-135. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-8666.2014.10.029
[5]	李雪燕. 儿童性虐待问题及预防策略[J]. 社会工作, 2017(1): 36-44. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4828.2017.01.04 LI X Y. Child sexual abuse and prevention progress[J]. J Soc Work, 2017(1): 36-44. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-4828.2017.01.04
[6]	狄晓先. 幼儿家长预防儿童性侵犯教育的调查研究[D]. 石家庄: 河北师范大学, 2014. DI X X. Parents of young children to prevent education investigation[D]. Shijiazhuang: Hebei Normal University, 2014.
[7]	RUDOLPH J, ZIMMER-GEMBECK M J, SHANLEY D C, et al. Child sexual abuse prevention opportunities: parenting, programs, and the reduction of risk[J]. Child Maltreat, 2018, 23(1): 96-106. doi: 10.1177/1077559517729479
[8]	阙思敏, 黄海莲, 李静. 关于儿童性侵害防范意识问题的研究[J]. 农村经济与科技, 2020, 31(5): 334-335. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NCJI202005154.htm QUE S M, HUANG H L, LI J. Research on prevention awareness of child sexual assault[J]. Rural Econ Sci Technol, 2020, 31(5): 334-335. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-NCJI202005154.htm
[9]	王小红, 杨倬东. 国外儿童性虐待解决之道: 基于预防、教育、治疗三维系统视角[J]. 重庆文理学院学报(社会科学版), 2015, 34(1): 114-119. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CQSZ201501025.htm WANG X H, YANG Z D. Solutions to child sexual abuse abroad-based on prevention, education, treatment of three-dimensional system perspective[J]. J Chongqing University Arts Sci (Soc Sci Edit), 2015, 34(1): 114-119. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-CQSZ201501025.htm
[10]	DOMHARDT M, MUNZER A, FEGERT J M, et al. Resilience in survivors of child sexual abuse: a systematic review of the literature[J]. Traum Viol Abuse, 2015, 16(4): 476-493. doi: 10.1177/1524838014557288
[11]	金莹莹, 徐海, 邹森, 等. 医学生手机依赖与儿童期性虐待的相关关系[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2015, 36(12): 1903-1905. http://zgxxws.xml-journal.net/article/id/zgxxws201512046 JIN Y Y, XU H, ZOU S, et al. Association between mobile phone dependence and childhood sexual abuse in medical students[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2015, 36(12): 1903-1905. http://zgxxws.xml-journal.net/article/id/zgxxws201512046
[12]	李晓芳. 大学生人格、人际交往与儿童期虐待的相关性研究[D]. 芜湖: 皖南医学院, 2016. LI X F. The research on relations of college students' personality interpersonal relationship and Childhood abuse[D]. Wuhu: Wannan Medical University, 2016.
[13]	黄妙红. 儿童期性侵犯受害者不同创伤反应的应对策略[D]. 北京: 中国青年政治学院, 2011. HUANG M H. The coping strategies to the different truma response of the childhood sexual abuse[D]. Beijing: China Youth University Political Sciences, 2011.
[14]	SANJEEVI J, HOULIHAN D, BERGSTROM K A, et al. A review of child sexual abuse: impact, risk, and resilience in the context of culture[J]. J Child Sex Abuse, 2018, 27(6): 622-641. doi: 10.1080/10538712.2018.1486934
[15]	庞晓华, 黄艳. 儿童性侵犯对受害者的影响及其调节因素[J]. 山西高等学校社会科学学报, 2018, 30(9): 37-41. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXGD201809008.htm PANG X H, HUANG Y. Influence of child sexual assault on the victim and its regulating factors[J]. Soc Sci J University Shanxi, 2018, 30(9): 37-41. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SXGD201809008.htm
[16]	陈晶琦, 孔艳秋, 李向梅, 等. 小学生家长预防儿童性侵犯教育影响评价[J]. 中国性科学, 2015, 24(7): 107-111. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XKXZ201507041.htm CHEN J Q, KONG Y Q, LI X M, et al. Impact of child sexual abuse prevention on elementary school pupils' parents[J]. Chin J Human Sex, 2015, 24(7): 107-111. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-XKXZ201507041.htm
[17]	徐泽辉, 王倩, 李丹. 山东省家长对学龄前儿童性教育现状及影响因素[J]. 中国学校卫生, 2020, 41(1): 119-121. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2020.01.032 XU Z H, WANG Q, LI D. Current status and influencing factors of parents' sex education for preschool children in Shandong Province[J]. Chin J Sch Health, 2020, 41(1): 119-121. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2020.01.032
[18]	熊俊. 儿童性侵犯罪的原因分析及预防[J]. 法制博览, 2019(6): 263. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FBZX201906185.htm XIONG J. Causes analysis and prevention of child sexual assault crimes[J]. Legal Rev, 2019(6): 263. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FBZX201906185.htm
[19]	张文静, 邓丽芳. 实施早期预防性侵犯教育的必要性及其实验效果[J]. 学前教育研究, 2019(4): 45-56. DOI: CNKI:SUN:XQJY.0.2019-04-006. ZHANG W J, DENG L F. The necessity and experimental results of early prevention of sexual assault education[J]. J Res Presch Educ, 2019(4): 45-56. DOI: CNKI:SUN:XQJY.0.2019-04-006.
[20]	何玲. 儿童性侵害与解决对策研究: 基于2013—2018年的相关数据[J]. 中国青年社会科学, 2019, 38(2): 133-140. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZQNZ201902018.htm HE L. Research on child sexual abuse and solutions-based on data from 2013-2018[J]. Chin Youth Soc Sci, 2019, 38(2): 133-140. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-ZQNZ201902018.htm
[21]	MCGILLIVRAY C J, PIDGEON A M, RONKEN C, et al. Resilience in non-offending mothers of children who have reported experiencing sexual abuse[J]. J Child Sex Abuse, 2018, 27(7): 793-810.