|
Indian Pediatr 2021;58:556-559 |
 |
Interpersonal Violence Against Children and
Adolescents: A Forensic Study From Greece
|
Konstantinos Katsos, 1
Emmanouil I Sakelliadis,1
Eleni Zorba,1 Artemis Tsitsika,2
Nikolaos Goutas,1
Dimitrios Vlachodimitropoulos,1
Stavroula Papadodima,1
Chara Spiliopoulou1
From 1Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology; and 2Adolescent
Health Unit, Second Department of Pediatrics, P. and A. Kyriakou Athens
Children’s Hospital; Medical School, National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Correspondence to: Dr Konstantinos Katsos, 75, Mikras Asias street,
11527, Athens, Greece.
Email: [email protected]
Received: June 13, 2020;
Initial review: July 10, 2020;
Accepted: August 04, 2020.
Published online:
August 06, 2020;
PII: S097475591600219
|
Objective: To investigate differences in
victimization of minors after allegations of domestic violence and
community violence. Methods: This retrospective study was
conducted by reviewing the archive of clinical examinations after
allegations for interpersonal violence against minors that were
performed at the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology of our
Medical School from 2012 to 2016. Results: 216 cases of
allegations for victimization of minors’ were referred to our
department, representing 8.8% of all clinical forensic examinations.
Boys community violence victims were affected mainly on the head, whilst
girls mainly on the genital area. Upper limbs were the predominant site
of injuries on domestic violence victims of both sexes. Conclusions:
Adolescents were in greater danger of sustaining injuries than younger
children. Upper limb injuries may prove to be a useful screening tool
for domestic violence in school-age children and adolescents, while
trunk injuries may indicate domestic violence in preschool children.
Keywords: Child abuse, Clinical forensic
examination, Community violence, Domestic violence, Greece, Minors’
victimization.
|
W orld Health
Organization (WHO) defines
violence as the intentional use of physical
force or power, threatened or actual,
against oneself, another person, or against a group or community
that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in
injury, death, psychological harm, mal-development or
deprivation [1]. Whilst the definition provided by the WHO about
child abuse/maltreatment includes mostly victimization by a
parent or caregiver [1,2], minors may be also victimized in the
community context by strangers or acquaintances (youth violence)
[3].
According to a systematic analysis, 40-60% of
boys and girls, aged between 2-14 years, have experienced
physical abuse by a parent, another family member or caregiver,
and approximately half of boys and girls, aged between 8-11
years, have experienced physical violence by a classmate [4].
Despite the amount of the existing literature on child abuse,
very few studies have been published concerning the injuries in
such cases. In Greece, studies concerning domestic abuse of
children are extremely rare [5,6], whilst studies concerning
minors’ victimization in the community context are practically
non-existent.
One of the main goals of the forensic
clinical examination of injured minors is to evaluate whether
injures are accidental or intentional [7-9]. Aim of this study
was to investigate differences in minors’ victimization in
domestic (DV) and community violence (CV) incidents in Greek
population, with emphasis on anatomic injury location, in an
attempt to investigate its usefulness as a screening tool for
identifying the perpetrators’ relation to the victim.
METHODS
The archives of the Department of Forensic
Medicine and Toxicology of Medical School of National and
Kapo-distrian University of Athens (NKUA) were reviewed
concerning clinical examinations for non-lethal injuries
conducted from 2012 to 2016, and cases of minors’ victimization
were included in our study. Allegations originated from areas
that cover approximately one tenth of the Greek population. All
data were collected anonymously, and the study was approved by
the Ethics Committee of our Medical School (NKUA).
Allegations were categorized into two groups:
i) domestic violence cases, subjected to Greek Law about
Domestic Violence (GLDV), and ii) community violence
cases, subjected to the Greek Penal Code (GPC). Variables
recorded for every case included victims’ and perpetrators’
demographic characteristics, clinician’s examination findings
before the forensic clinical examination, mechanism of injuries
(a) physical violence (when just a body part acted as a
blunt force instrument), (b) use of a blunt force object
only, (c) combination of a and b; (d) sharp force
instrument; (e) sexual abuse; and (f) firearm
injuries), type of injuries (a) external injuries
affecting only soft tissue (e.g. bruises); (b)
internal injuries (e.g. fractures); and (c)
evidence of sexual abuse), affected body region (head, neck,
trunk, upper and lower limbs), and characterization of injuries
according to GLDV [10] and GPC [11].
Statistical analysis: Data are presented
as proportions. Categorical data were analyzed using Pearson
chi-square test. Data analyses were performed using the
Statistical package for social sciences software (SPSS version
25.0, SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois). A P<0.05 was
considered statistically significant.
RESULTS
Two hundred and sixteen cases of minors’
victimization were referred to our department, representing
approximately 8.8% of all clinical examinations [community
violence (CV): 8.5%, domestic violence (DV): 9.4%].
Victimization of boys was less frequent in the domestic context
(P=0.01) and concerned mainly adolescents (Table I).
Victimization in the domestic context was more frequent for
school-age boys (P=0.01). Most DV cases (91.0%) concerned
allegations against a parent, whilst 6.4% concerned a
grandparent and 2.6% a sibling. In 68.3% of the total cases,
victims knew the perpetrator(s). There were no allegations for
intimate partner violence in the adolescent age group, neither
any allegation for physical violence by teachers.
Table I Demographic Characteristics of Victims and Perpetrators in Children With Interpersonal Violence (N=216)
|
Community violence |
Domestic violence |
|
|
|
Boys |
Girls |
Boys |
Girls |
|
(n=85) |
(n=53) |
(n=34) |
(n=44) |
Victim’s nationality |
|
|
|
|
Greek |
76 (89.4) |
42 (79.2) |
29 (85.3) |
39 (88.6) |
Other |
9 (10.6) |
11 (20.8) |
5 (14.7) |
5 (11.4) |
Victim’s age |
|
|
|
|
Infant (<1 y) |
0 |
0 |
1 (2.9) |
1 (2.3) |
Preschool age (1-5 y) |
3 (3.5) |
4 (7.6) |
4 (11.8) |
9 (20.4) |
School age (6-12 y) |
15 (17.7) |
19 (35.8) |
22 (64.7) |
15 (34.1) |
Adolescent (13-17 y) |
67 (78.8) |
30 (56.6) |
7 (20.6) |
19 (43.2) |
Age (y)a |
14.1 (3.6) |
12.6 (3.5) |
9.2 (3.9) |
10.4 (5.1) |
Perpetrator’s sex |
|
|
|
|
Male |
65 (76.5) |
46 (86.8) |
23 (65.6) |
30 (68.2) |
Male and female |
0 |
2 (3.8) |
0 |
0 |
Unknown |
13 (15.3) |
0 |
2 (7.9)b |
3 (6.8)b |
Perpetrator’s sex |
|
|
|
|
Under 17 y |
28 (32.9) |
7 (13.2) |
1 (2.9) |
0 |
Over 18 y |
30 (35.3) |
22 (41.5) |
33 (97.1) |
44 (100) |
Unknown |
27 (31.8) |
24 (45.3) |
0 |
0 |
Perpetrator’s nationality |
|
|
|
|
Greek |
40 (47.1) |
31 (58.5) |
27 (79.4) |
38 (86.4) |
Other |
5 (5.8) |
10 (18.9) |
4 (11.8) |
3 (6.8) |
Unknown |
40 (47.1) |
12 (22.6) |
2 (8.8) |
3 (6.8) |
Data is presented
as No. (%) except amean (SD). bfive allegations about
domestic violence were against the parent but there was
no information whether it was the father or the mother. |
In 48.5% of CV allegations, the perpetrators
were strangers. Girls knew the perpetrator(s) more frequently
than boys (81.4% vs 58.8% for boys). Allegations against females
were more frequent in DV allegations (P=0.016 for boys,
and 0.032 for girls), whilst allegations against males were more
frequent in CV allegations (P=0.001). A clinician
examined 77 victims (35.6%) before the forensic examination. DV
victims were less frequently examined by a clinician than CV
victims (DV: 21.8%, CV: 43.5%, P=0.001).
Table II Body Region Injured in Children With Interpersonal Violence (N=216)
|
|
Community
violence |
|
Domestic
violence |
P value |
P value
|
|
Boys (n=85) |
Girls (n=53) |
Boys (n=34) |
Girls (n=44) |
(for boys) |
(for girls) |
None |
10 (11.8) |
16 (30.2) |
10 (29.4) |
13 (29.5) |
0.02 |
0.05 |
Head |
53 (62.3) |
8 (15.1) |
10 (29.4) |
8 (18.2) |
0.001 |
0.68 |
Face |
52 (61.2) |
8 (15.1) |
9 (26.5) |
7 (15.9) |
0.001 |
0.91 |
Cranium |
8 (9.4) |
1 (1.9) |
2 (5.9) |
3 (6.8) |
– |
– |
Neck |
11 (12.9) |
5 (9.4) |
2 (5.9) |
4 (9.1) |
– |
– |
Trunk |
19 (22.3) |
15 (28.3) |
9 (26.5) |
13 (29.5) |
0.62 |
0.89 |
Thorax |
12 (14.1) |
5 (9.4) |
7 (20.6) |
3 (6.8) |
0.38 |
– |
Abdomen |
5 (5.9) |
1 (1.9) |
0 |
3 (6.8) |
– |
– |
Back |
12 (14.1) |
9 (17.0) |
5 (14.7) |
7 (15.9) |
– |
0.89 |
Genitalia |
0 |
10 (18.9) |
0 |
2 (4.5) |
– |
0.03 |
Upper limbs |
28 (32.9) |
11 (20.7) |
12 (35.3) |
17 (38.6) |
0.81 |
0.05 |
Arms |
13 (15.3) |
5 (9.4) |
8 (23.5) |
14 (31.8) |
0.29 |
0.006 |
Forearms |
21 (24.7) |
8 (15.1) |
5 (14.7) |
9 (20.4) |
0.23 |
0.49 |
Hands |
11 (12.9) |
1 (1.9) |
5 (14.7) |
8 (18.2) |
– |
– |
Lower limbs |
21 (24.7) |
8 (15.1) |
7 (20.6) |
11 (25.0) |
0.63 |
0.22 |
Thighs |
15 (17.6) |
8 (15.1) |
4 (11.8) |
10 (22.7) |
0.43 |
0.33 |
Leg calves |
16 (18.8) |
4 (7.5) |
6 (17.6) |
5 (11.4) |
0.88 |
0.52 |
Feet |
1 (1.2) |
0 |
0 |
2 (4.5) |
– |
– |
Data is presented as
no. (%). |
In 43 cases (19.9%), a single injury was
assessed during the examination (CV: 18.8%, DV: 21.8%), whilst
144 victims (66.7%) sustained multiple injuries (CV: 55.1%, DV:
48.7%). Sexual assaults against girls com-prised 52.8% of the CV
and 25.0% of the DV cases, whilst allegations of sexual abuse in
boys were rare (CV: 2.3%, DV: 11.8%). Signs of sexual abuse were
more frequent in allegations about sexual victimization in the
community context (CV: 33.3%, DV: 20.0%, P=0.01). In most
boys’ victimization, the perpetrator employed only physical
force (CV: 68.2%, DV: 61.4%). Sharp force instruments were used
by perpetrators only in CV (boys: 7.2%, girls: 3.8%). CV victims
were more likely to sustain internal injuries, compared to DV
victims (CV: 15.2%, DV: 3.8%, P=0.04). Anatomical
distribution of injuries is depicted in Table II and
Web Table I. Injuries inflicted in DV were more likely to be
characterized as simple injuries (P=0.01)
DISCUSSION
According to our study, CV cases concern more
frequently boys, especially adolescents, and DV affects equally
both sexes. DV frequency was at comparable levels with a
Netherlands study, whilst CV cases were significantly less [12].
This finding may suggest that CV, especially youth violence,
occur less frequently or is reported less frequently to the
Police in Greece than in other countries.
Physical violence was the most common
mechanism that perpetrator(s) employed, which is in accordance
with other studies [5,12]. According to an American study,
injuries inflicted by weapon(s) were less frequent in girls than
boys and were recorded only in CV incidents [13]. This finding
probably means that DV perpetrators (mostly parents) employ just
physical violence (by use of body parts) as punishment and
disciplinary measures.
Another finding of our study was the smaller
frequency of prior examination by a clinician for DV inci-dents,
compared to CV frequency. Clinicians, especially pediatricians,
can and should play an important role in the early diagnosis of
abuse and victimization, especially in the domestic context.
According to Joseph, et al. [14], boys admitted at
emergency departments (EDs) were more likely to be DV victims
than their female counterparts. Our results do not confirm this
finding. Furthermore, according to our results, head was the
predominant site of injury, which is in accordance to another
Greek study [5]. Nevertheless, the latter depicts only male
victims of CV, in contrast to other studies that reported head
injuries in child abuse incidents more frequently [5,14]. These
findings could possibly suggest a selection bias, as our study
included forensic population (after allegations for
inter-personal violence), whilst the studied populations by
Joseph, et al. [14] and Petridou, et al. [5] represented
patients admitted at EDs.
According to a UK study 65.6% of assaults
were recorded only on EDs, 23.6% were reported only to the
Police, and only 10.8% were reported both to EDs and the Police.
Furthermore only 1 or 2 out of 10 minors have reported their
victimization to both a police officer and a clinician, as up to
60-70% had mentioned the incident only at EDs [15]. These
findings suggest that future research should combine records
from EDs, forensic departments and the police department, to
ascertain the true extent of minors’ victimization which seek
medical care or judicial support.
Our study demonstrated that most DV and CV
adolescent victims sustained injuries, suggesting that they are
in greater danger of getting injured than younger children,
especially than children at the preschool development stage.
Furthermore, upper limbs injuries could possibly become a
screening tool for domestic abuse in school-age children and
adolescents, whilst trunk injuries could imply domestic abuse in
preschool children, but these results should be verified by
future large scale community studies.
To the best of our knowledge, this is the
first study in Greece that compared minors’ victimization in the
community and the domestic context. High incidence and
prevalence of exposure to physical violence (both domestic and
community) reported by Petroulaki, et al. [6] compared to
allegation rates in our Department suggest that minors’
victimization is underreported in Greece. Campaigns about child
abuse and youth violence are needed, to eliminate or at least
reduce these phenomena.
Ethics clearance: Ethics Committee of the
Medical School of National and Kapodistrian University of
Athens, Greece; No. 5836 dated February 2, 2015.
Contributors: KK: concept and design of
the study, collection, and interpretation of the data, drafting
the article and revised it critically for important intellectual
content; ES: Interpretation of the data, drafting the article
and revised it critically for important intellectual content; EZ:
analysis and interpretation of the data, revising the article
critically for important intellectual content; AT,NG,DV, SP:
concept and design of the study, drafting the article and
revised it critically for important intellectual content; CS:
concept and design of the study, drafting the article and
revised it critically for important intellectual content. All
authors approved the final version of manuscript, and agreed to
be accountable for all aspects related to the study.
Funding: None; Competing interest:
None stated.
What this Study Adds?
• In a Greek population, head
injuries in boys and genital injuries in girls were
associated with victimization in the community context,
whereas arm injuries in girls were associated with
domestic violence.
• Upper limb injuries in school-age children and
adolescents, and trunk injuries in preschool children
were associated with domestic abuse.
|
REFERENCES
1. Krug EG, Dahlberg LL, Mercy JA, Zwi AB,
Lozano R. World Report on Violence and Health. World Health
Organization, 2002. Accessed July 12, 2020. Available from:
https://www.who.int/violence_injury_ prevention/violence/world_report/chapters/en/
2. Pinheiro PS. World Report on Violence
against Children. United Nations & World Health Organization,
2006. Accessed July 12, 2020. Available from:
https://digitallibrary.un.org/ record/587334
3. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. What is youth violence? Accessed July 12, 2020.
Available from:
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/youthviolence/definitions.
html
4. Devries K, Knight L, Petzold M, et al. Who
perpetrates violence against children? A systematic analysis of
age-speci-fic and sex-specific data. BMJ Paediatr Open.
2018;2: e000180.
5. Petridou E, Moustaki M, Gemanaki E,
Djeddah C, Trichopoulos D. Intentional childhood injuries in
Greece 1996-97 - Data from a population-based Emergency
Department Injury Surveillance System (EDISS). Scand J
Public Health. 2001;29:279-84.
6. Petroulaki K, Tsirigori A, Zarokosta F,
Nikolaidis G. Epidemiological characteristics of minors’
exposure to experiences of violence in Greece: The BECAN Study.
Psychiatriki. 2013;24:262-71.
7. Stark MM. Clinical Forensic Medicine. A
Physician’s Guide. 4th Edition. Switzerland: Springer Nature
Switzer-land AG; 2020.
8. Madea B. Handbook of Forensic Medicine.
New Jersey: Wiley Blackwell; 2014.
9. Tsokos M. Diagnostic criteria for
cutaneous injuries in child abuse: Classification, findings, and
interpertation. Forensic Sci Med Pathol. 2015;11:235-42.
10. Hellenic Government Gazette. Law
3500/2006 about Domestic Violence. Accessed July 12, 2020.
Available from:
http://www.et.gr/idocs-nph/search/pdfViewerForm. html?args=5C7QrtC22wFGQ40gSLPFOXdtvSoClrL
8no yF6ARJ3CN5MXD0LzQTLWPU9yLzB8V68kCmTXKa
O6fpVZ6Lx3UnKl3nP8NxdnJ5r9cmWyJWelDvWS_18k
AEhATUkJb0x1LIdQ163nV9K—td6SIua-21KSe3EAb
K8Hv5-nzLt1T2W0HKzl8QinxhatquxRm
11. Hellenic Government Gazette. Penal Code.
Accessed July 12, 2020. Available from:
http://www.et.gr/idocs-nph/sear ch/pdfViewerForm.html?args=5C7QrtC22wFqnM3e
AbJ zrXdtvSoClrL8smx2PaOMA0btIl9LGdkF53UIxsx942 Cdy
qxSQYNuqAGCF0IfB9HI6qSYtMQEkEHLwnFqmgJSA5
WIsluV-nRwO1oKqSe4BlOTSpEWYhszF8P8UqWb_zFij
EvIo-96KN5QRhtXjIrtIsGCUfNEKdOeNlYed-CLu6M4
12. Reijnders UJL, Ceelen M. 7208 Victims of
domestic and public violence: An exploratory study based on
reports of assaulted individuals reporting to the police. J
Forensic Leg Med. 2014;24:18-23.
13. Ranney ML, Mello MJ. A comparison of
female and male adolescent victims of violence seen in the
emergency department. J Emerg Med. 2011;41:701-6.
14. Joseph B, Khalili M, Zangbar B, et al.
Prevalence of domestic violence among trauma patients. JAMA
Surg. 2015;150:1177-83.
15. Sutherland I, Sivarajasingam V, Shepherd JP. Recording of
community violence by medical and police services. Inj Prev.
2002;8:246-7.
|
|
 |
|