The Neglect of Left-Behind Children in China: A Meta-Analysis

Objective: To evaluate the neglect of left-behind children (LBC) in China.

Method: Children separated from one or both parents for at least 6 months. Trauma of separation. Non-left-behind children (NLBC). Neglect rates and severity. Only case-control studies were included.

Results: Thirteen studies were included; there were 18,688 LBC in a large sample ( = 42,003) of children aged 0-18 years in China. The overall neglect rate was significantly higher in LBC compared to NLBC (odds ratio [] = 1.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] = [1.50, 1.67], < .01) based on the Chinese Rural Child Neglected Evaluation Model (CRCNEM) and the Parents-Child Conflict Tactics Scales ( = 1.44, 95% CI [1.35, 1.54], < .01). The overall neglect severity in LBC was also significantly higher than NLBC ( = 0.31, 95% CI [0.28, 0.33], < .01). The same trends were observed in sex subgroups. With regard to subtypes, LBC were significantly more likely to have emotional neglect ( = 2.29, 95% CI [1.88, 2.78], < .01), medical neglect ( = 1.79, 95% CI [1.62, 1.98], < .01), physical neglect ( = 1.75, 95% CI [1.60, 1.91], < .01), security neglect ( = 1.52, 95% CI [1.32, 1.75], < .01), educational neglect ( = 1.50, 95% CI [1.31, 1.72], < .01), and social neglect ( = 1.33, 95% CI [1.18, 1.51], < .01). Furthermore, LBC had significantly higher severity in medical neglect ( = 0.31, 95% CI [0.27, 0.35], < .01), emotional neglect ( = 0.28, 95% CI [0.24, 0.32], < .01), physical neglect ( = 0.24, 95% CI [0.18, 0.29], < .01), security neglect ( = 0.26, 95% CI [0.23, 0.29], < .01), educational neglect ( = 0.25, 95% CI [0.20, 0.31], < .01), and social neglect ( = 0.25, 95% CI [0.10, 0.40], < .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.