Cross-sectional survey examines public knowledge of child abuse in children with disabilities, indicating gaps impacting reporting intentions.
BACKGROUND: Children with disabilities face disproportionately high risks of child abuse and neglect (CAN), yet detection and reporting remain persistently low. In Malaysia, despite legal frameworks mandating child protection, underreporting suggests gaps between awareness, knowledge, and reporting behaviour. OBJECTIVE: This study examined public awareness and CAN knowledge among Malaysian adults in relation to children with disabilities, and assessed whether socioeconomic factors or CAN knowledge showed a stronger association with intention to report suspected abuse. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A total of 320 Malaysian adults participated, including healthcare professionals (n = 160) and non-healthcare individuals (n = 160). METHODS: A cross-sectional survey assessed awareness, CAN knowledge, training exposure, past reporting behaviour, and reporting intention using standardized vignettes adapted from the validated Malay Early Childhood Educators Child Abuse Questionnaire (ECECAQ). Multivariate logistic regression identified factors associated with awareness. Confirmatory factor analysis refined the knowledge construct, and structural equation modelling (SEM) examined pathways between socioeconomic factors, knowledge, and reporting intention. RESULTS: = 9.8%), and income showed a small indirect association with reporting intention through its relationship with knowledge. Education showed no direct or indirect association. CONCLUSIONS: Public safeguarding of children with disabilities in Malaysia may be constrained by limited CAN knowledge rather than general educational attainment. Strengthening disability-specific CAN training and improving public confidence in child protection systems are essential to narrowing the intention-behaviour gap.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yi et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: