Childhood Abuse Prevalence in Canada

Insights from Six National Surveys

Bibliographic Data

ID12958774
AuthorsBritt Mckinnon (0000-0002-3109-5474, Public Health Agency of Canada, corresponding author), Wendy Hovdestad (0000-0002-1988-6150, Public Health Agency of Canada), Aimée Campeau (0000-0003-3457-1613, Public Health Agency of Canada), Nancy J Pollock (0000-0001-5699-7661, Public Health Agency of Canada), Tracie O Afifi (0000-0002-3745-9785, University of Manitoba), Andrea Gonzalez (0000-0003-0087-830X, McMaster University), Harriet L Macmillan (0000-0002-1223-706X, McMaster University), Lil Tonmyr (0000-0002-8722-7616, Public Health Agency of Canada)
Year2025
Volume19
Issue1
Pages247-263
Publication date2025-10-28
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueChild Indicators Research (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1874-8988 • E-ISSN: 1874-897X
PublisherSpringer Science+Business Media (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1007/s12187-025-10302-1
OpenAlexW4415618056
LanguageEN
References cited44

Reliable estimates of childhood abuse (CA) prevalence are essential for informing resource allocation and prevention strategies. While previous research has provided valuable insights, inconsistencies in definitions and data collection methods have hindered a clear understanding of prevalence patterns. Recent changes in Canadian surveys enable comparisons of self-reported CA data, offering insight into prevalence over time and across survey contexts. The objective of this study is to estimate CA prevalence across six national surveys conducted in Canada from 2012 to 2022 and examine differences in prevalence estimates across surveys with distinct methodologies. Data were drawn from six population-based surveys conducted by Statistics Canada, including health-focused and victimization-focused surveys. The analysis was restricted to adults aged 25 and older living in the 10 Canadian provinces. Prevalence estimates were estimated using validated self-reported measures of childhood physical abuse, sexual abuse, and exposure to intimate partner violence (EIPV). Age-standardized estimates were compared across surveys. CA prevalence varied substantially across surveys, with health-focused surveys consistently reporting higher prevalence estimates than victimization-focused surveys. For example, in 2019, physical abuse prevalence was 28.4% (95% CI: 27.7–29.1) in the health survey versus 13.4% (95% CI: 12.7–14.1) in the victimization survey. Similar differences were observed for sexual abuse (10.9% vs. 7.1%) and EIPV (8.0% vs. 4.8%). Differences in prevalence estimates likely reflect variations in survey focus, question framing, and data collection methods rather than actual differences in CA experiences. Understanding these methodological variations is important for interpreting CA data accurately and improving cross-survey comparability

Data collection · Occupational safety and health · Physical abuse · Public health · Sexual abuse · Survey data collection · Survey methodology · Child Abuse and Related Trauma · Child Abuse and Trauma · Intimate Partner and Family Violence · Epidemiology

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access