| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 485.93 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
CONTEXTO: As crianças e jovens referenciadas à CPCJ: O espelho das problemáticas. OBJETIVOS: Os objetivos deste estudo foram: identificar as problemáticas e quem mais sinaliza as situações de crianças e jovens em rico/perigo, verificar se as problemáticas envolvidas na sinalização de crianças e jovens em risco mudaram da primeira para a segunda sinalização e caracterizar as famílias das crianças e jovens em risco/perigo. METODOLOGIA: Estudo descritivo de abordagem quantitativa resultante da consulta de 160 processos. RESULTADOS: Dos 160 casos - 41,9% constituída por famílias nucleares (pais e filhos) e 20% mononucleares (mãe e filhos) - a negligência foi a principal causa de sinalização, não só na primeira sinalização (38,5%) como na reabertura (26,3%). Na reabertura do processo verificamos que um grande número mantém a mesma problemática, ou seja, 29% negligência, 25% comportamentos desviantes, 20% absentismo escolar; abandono e absentismo escolar são igualmente causas com elevada prevalência não só na primeira sinalização como na reabertura do processo. A escola é a entidade que mais sinaliza: 34,4% na 1ª sinalização e 46,5% na 2ª sinalização; em 71,3% dos casos a criança não é seguida por um profissional de saúde mental e psiquiátrica e 10% (16) é seguida pela pedopsiquiatria, 0,6% (1) por psiquiatra e igual número por um serviço de internamento e finalmente 17,5% (28) são acompanhadas por um psicólogo. Quanto aos pais verificou-se que 85,8% (139) não tem qualquer acompanhamento; 9,3% (15) dos casos somente a mãe tem acompanhamento psiquiátrico; 1,2% (2) dos casos somente o pai e em 0,6% (1) dos casos ambos os pais são acompanhados por um psiquiatra. 3,1% (5) não referiram quem os acompanha. CONCLUSÃO: No artigo 27 da Convenção dos Direitos da Criança podemos ler que esta deve beneficiar de um nível de vida adequado ao seu desenvolvimento, ao confrontarmos esta afirmação com os nossos resultados podemos verificar que dos processos reabertos pela CPCJ a problemática de perigo que mais se evidência é a negligência, uma grande percentagem das crianças/jovens coabita nas suas famílias nucleares, para além disso da 1ª para a 2ª sinalização não se verifica nenhum tipo de acompanhamento na área da saúde mental, a nenhum dos elementos do agregado familiar, o que poderá contribuir para que a situação se perpetue no tempo e não havendo mudança de comportamento torna-se inevitável referenciar novamente a criança/jovem.
BACKGROUND: Children and young people referenced to the Child and Youth Protection Commission (CPCJ): The problematics mirror. AIM: The objectives of this study were to identify the problem and who else signals the situations of children and young people in rich / danger, ensure that the issues involved in the signaling of children and youth at risk, has changed from the first to the second signal and characterize the families of children and youth at risk / danger. METHODS: Descriptive study of quantitative aproach resulting from 160 cases consultation. RESULTS: Of the 160 cases - 41.9% made upof nuclear families (parents and children) and 20% mononuclear (mother and children) - negligence was the main cause of signaling, not only the first signaling (38.5%) but in reopening cases (26.3%). On the reopening of the cases we found that a large number remains with the same problems, which are, 29% neglect, 25% deviant behavior, 20% school absenteeism. School dropout and absenteeism are also high prevalence causes, not only in the first signaling as in the case reopening. The school is the entity that most signals: 34.4% at the 1st signaling and 46.5% at the 2nd; in 71.3% of cases the child is not followed by a mental and psychiatric health specialist and 10% (16) is followed by child psychiatry, 0.6% (1) by a psychiatrist and an equal number for an inpatient service and finally 17.5% (28) are accompanied by a psychologist. The parents were found to be 85.8% (139) has no monitoring; 9.3% (15) of the cases only the mother has psychiatric care; 1.2% (2) of the cases only the father and 0.6% (1) cases both parents are accompanied by a psychiatrist. 3.1% (5) did not report who accompanies them. CONCLUSION: On the Article 27 of the Child Rights Convention we can read that the child should benefit from an adequate standard of living for its development, by confronting this statement with our results we can see that in the processes reopened by CPCJ the most evidence hazard problem is neglect, a large percentage of children / young people cohabiting in their nuclear families, furthermore from 1st to the 2nd signaling did not hapen any kind of mental health follow-upfor none of the household members, which may contribute to the persistence of the situation and if there is no behavior changes becomes inevitable reference the child / young again.
BACKGROUND: Children and young people referenced to the Child and Youth Protection Commission (CPCJ): The problematics mirror. AIM: The objectives of this study were to identify the problem and who else signals the situations of children and young people in rich / danger, ensure that the issues involved in the signaling of children and youth at risk, has changed from the first to the second signal and characterize the families of children and youth at risk / danger. METHODS: Descriptive study of quantitative aproach resulting from 160 cases consultation. RESULTS: Of the 160 cases - 41.9% made upof nuclear families (parents and children) and 20% mononuclear (mother and children) - negligence was the main cause of signaling, not only the first signaling (38.5%) but in reopening cases (26.3%). On the reopening of the cases we found that a large number remains with the same problems, which are, 29% neglect, 25% deviant behavior, 20% school absenteeism. School dropout and absenteeism are also high prevalence causes, not only in the first signaling as in the case reopening. The school is the entity that most signals: 34.4% at the 1st signaling and 46.5% at the 2nd; in 71.3% of cases the child is not followed by a mental and psychiatric health specialist and 10% (16) is followed by child psychiatry, 0.6% (1) by a psychiatrist and an equal number for an inpatient service and finally 17.5% (28) are accompanied by a psychologist. The parents were found to be 85.8% (139) has no monitoring; 9.3% (15) of the cases only the mother has psychiatric care; 1.2% (2) of the cases only the father and 0.6% (1) cases both parents are accompanied by a psychiatrist. 3.1% (5) did not report who accompanies them. CONCLUSION: On the Article 27 of the Child Rights Convention we can read that the child should benefit from an adequate standard of living for its development, by confronting this statement with our results we can see that in the processes reopened by CPCJ the most evidence hazard problem is neglect, a large percentage of children / young people cohabiting in their nuclear families, furthermore from 1st to the 2nd signaling did not hapen any kind of mental health follow-upfor none of the household members, which may contribute to the persistence of the situation and if there is no behavior changes becomes inevitable reference the child / young again.
Description
Keywords
Crianças e jovens em perigo Comissões de proteção Problemáticas Children and young in danger Protection commission Problematics