Background: Supervisory neglect is among the most frequently identified forms of child maltreatment, yet definitions and reporting practices vary widely. Clinicians and child-protection professionals often rely on professional judgment without standardized criteria, resulting in inconsistencies in decisions to report or intervene. Objectives: (1) Describe how supervisory neglect is defined and operationalized in the literature. (2) Map criteria/indicators and professional decision-making processes guiding reporting or intervention. (3) Identify contextual factors (clinical, legal, cultural) and tools that influence decisions, and highlight gaps to inform guidance. Methods: Scoping review following JBI methodology and reported per PRISMA-ScR. Databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, and Google Scholar (through July 2025). PCC framework: Population children/adolescents 18y; Concept professional judgment, reporting criteria/indicators for supervisory neglect; Context healthcare/child-protection settings. English-language original studies only (reviews of any kind, case reports/series excluded). Two reviewers will conduct duplicate screening and data charting (study characteristics; definitions; criteria/indicators; decision factors; tools; outcomes). Synthesis will use descriptive statistics and thematic analysis with concept mapping. Preliminary findings: Included studies (predominantly US/Canada; retrospective, cross-sectional, and administrative data analyses) show: • Variable definitions of supervisory neglect and heterogeneous operationalization; • Decision factors commonly include child age/development, caregiver capacity, supervision continuity/proximity, environmental hazards, and prior CPS involvement; • Tools/approaches referenced include RASS and LOSCS, but uptake is inconsistent; • Reporting practices often hinge on clinician/CPS judgment with limited standardized criteria; Several studies call for clearer guidance and supportive, context-sensitive responses for lower-risk cases. Conclusion: The evidence demonstrates substantial variability in definitions and reporting criteria for supervisory neglect, as well as a heavy reliance on professional judgment. A consolidated map of indicators and contextual drivers can inform the development of clearer guidance, training, and decision-support tools to promote consistent, child-centered reporting practices.
Algamedi et al. (Thu,) studied this question.