Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 23, 2025

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
Published on: February 2, 2017
The Neglect of Left-Behind Children in China: A Meta-Analysis
Yu-Jie Wen1, Wen-Peng Hou1, Wei Zheng2
1The National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders & Beijing Key Laboratory of Mental Disorders & Beijing Institute for Brain Disorders Center of Schizophrenia, Beijing Anding Hospital, Capital Medical University, China.
Objective:
To evaluate the neglect of left-behind children (LBC) in China.
Method:
Participants: Children separated from one or both parents for at least 6 months. Intervention: Trauma of separation. Comparison: Non-left-behind children (NLBC). Outcomes: Neglect rates and severity. Only case-control studies were included.
Results:
Thirteen studies were included; there were 18,688 LBC in a large sample (N = 42,003) of children aged 0-18 years in China. The overall neglect rate was significantly higher in LBC compared to NLBC (odds ratio [OR] = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.50, 1.67], p < .01) based on the Chinese Rural Child Neglected Evaluation Model (CRCNEM) and the Parents-Child Conflict Tactics Scales (OR = 1.44, 95% CI [1.35, 1.54], p < .01). The overall neglect severity in LBC was also significantly higher than NLBC (SMD = 0.31, 95% CI [0.28, 0.33], p < .01). The same trends were observed in sex subgroups. With regard to subtypes, LBC were significantly more likely to have emotional neglect (OR = 2.29, 95% CI [1.88, 2.78], p < .01), medical neglect (OR = 1.79, 95% CI [1.62, 1.98], p < .01), physical neglect (OR = 1.75, 95% CI [1.60, 1.91], p < .01), security neglect (OR = 1.52, 95% CI [1.32, 1.75], p < .01), educational neglect (OR = 1.50, 95% CI [1.31, 1.72], p < .01), and social neglect (OR = 1.33, 95% CI [1.18, 1.51], p < .01). Furthermore, LBC had significantly higher severity in medical neglect (SMD = 0.31, 95% CI [0.27, 0.35], p < .01), emotional neglect (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI [0.24, 0.32], p < .01), physical neglect (SMD = 0.24, 95% CI [0.18, 0.29], p < .01), security neglect (SMD = 0.26, 95% CI [0.23, 0.29], p < .01), educational neglect (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI [0.20, 0.31], p < .01), and social neglect (SMD = 0.25, 95% CI [0.10, 0.40], p < .01).
Conclusion:
The neglect rates and severity in LBC in China were both significantly higher than those in NLBC. There was a strong association between neglect and LBC. Public policy changes are urgently needed to improve the dire situation and the well-being of the LBC.
More Related Videos
07:01Experimental Paradigm for Measuring the Effects of Self-distancing in Young Children
Published on: March 1, 2019
05:04A Common Marmoset Model of Mother-Infant Intervention for Breastfeeding Disorders in the Presence of Paternal Inhibition and Maternal Neglect
Published on: September 22, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Parenting Styles
Authoritarian Parenting
This style is strict and controlling, with little room for open dialogue. Authoritarian parents demand obedience and often enforce rules with minimal warmth. Children raised this way may lack social skills and initiative, usually comparing themselves to others unfavorably.
Authoritative...
Bias in Epidemiological Studies
Theory of Romantic Attachment in Adulthood
Conduct Disorder
Relationship with Other Adult Family Members and Siblings
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies