Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Jan 20;137:106041. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106041

From parental issues of job and finance to child well-being and maltreatment: A systematic review of the pandemic-related spillover effect☆

Peggy Pui Lai Or 1,⁎,1, Yuan Fang 1,1, Fenghua Sun 1, Eric Tsz Chun Poon 1, Carmen Ka Man Chan 1, Louisa Ming Yan Chung 1
PMCID: PMC9851830  PMID: 36682192

Abstract

Background

Covid-19 pandemic jeopardized family well-being at the population level internationally. Pandemic-related job/financial difficulties in parents have a spillover effect on their child's well-being and issues of child maltreatment. Objective: The current review sought to systematically summarize and analyze this pandemic-related spillover effect.

Participants and settings

In the home setting, participants involved 11,100 adolescents, 9144 parents/caregivers, and another 7927 parent-children dyads. Methods: An extensive literature search in 13 electronic databases was conducted. A total 21 eligible papers published from 2020 to 2022 were included for further thematic analysis.

Results

A significant positive relationship between the pandemic-related spillover effect from parental job or financial issues to child maltreatment and child's mental/behavioral issues was established. The internal mechanisms demonstrated that this relationship was intermediated or moderated by the interactions of parental mental health issues, parenting practice, and family relationships. Families with particular factors may be more vulnerable and sensitive to the spillover effect during the pandemic. The work-from-home arrangement was found as positively related to enhanced parenting warmth and parent-child relationship in some cases who had relatively high familial social-economic status.

Conclusions

Findings of current review provided the evidences from empirical data. During the Covid-19 pandemic, spillover effect from parental job/financial issues significantly influenced the child well-being and family functioning. Future efforts for intervention/service design should be made to enhance familial protective factors and support those families with vulnerable factors.

Keywords: Spillover effect, Job/financial issues, child's well-being, Child maltreatment/abuse, Mediate/moderate, Covid-19

1. Introduction

The unfolding Covid-19 pandemic has devastated the world for almost three years and continues todays. The consequences of such tragedy include not only over 583 million infection cases and approximately 6.4 million death tolls internationally (WHO, 2022), but also numerous job losses, huge economic recession, massive lockdown and confinement (OECD, 2022), which jeopardized the well-being of humans at the population level. Official data of the United Nations shows that the world unemployment rate increased by 1.1 % from 2019 (5.4 %) to 2020 (6.5 %), whereas 8.8 % of global working hours were lost due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This is 4 times the data documented in the global financial crisis in 2009 (UN, 2022). The stress under such crisis is particularly highlighted for parents, who have to confront a much greater challenge between their paid job and responsibility of childcare in comparison with their situation prior to the pandemic. In the context of Covid-19 pandemic, about 80 countries experienced partial or full lockdowns, and another 100 countries implemented restrictions on movement (Gromadai et al., 2020). These all resulted in an extensive decline in external support obtained by parents for childcare (e.g., childcare by grandparents, siblings, and community services). Thus, it is easily understood why 1/4 of quarantined parents and 1/20 of non-quarantined parents developed symptoms of mental health issues at a global scale (Gromadai et al., 2020).

Based on the spillover-crossover model, “spillover” refers to “a within-person, across-domains transmission of strain from one area of life to another” (Bakker & Demerouti, 2013, p. 55, chap. 4). Particularly, energy and/or time is limited for a single person who may play multiple roles in different domains (e.g., work, family, friends, etc., Pleck, 1977). Thus, when energy/time runs out in one of the roles, they may become too exhausted to be competent in other roles (Hobfoll, 2002). In addition, stress may emerge when people are at risk of losing or have already lost such resources (e.g., pandemic-related job loss, income reduction, or material hardship, Schnettler et al., 2020). In the context of Covid-19 pandemic, many people had difficulties in balancing their work and life. Thus, negative spillover effect prevalently appeared in those parents when they had the transmission of negative psychological perception and/or experiences from job/financial issues to family life (e.g., childcare). Subsequently, it not only hampers the parents' well-being, but also affects the intrapersonal relationships and well-being of other people who are in close connections with them, such as their children.

Existing reviews have mainly focused on the difficulties, experiences and health issues of both parents and children during the Covid-19 pandemic. In addition to the negative consequence in youth's well-being directly affected by the Covid-19 pandemic (Oostrom et al., 2022), parental factors have been identified to have essential impact on psychosocial variables of children during the pandemic (Lehmann et al., 2022). These involved parents' mental health status, parental perception of stress, parent-child interaction, and parenting stress. Unfortunately, the perceived burn out was frequently reported by parents, when they failed to balance the resource and distress during the Covid-19 pandemic (Griffith, 2022). Because of this, parental neglect or aggression increased in relationship with their children, which implied a dangerous spillover effect affecting child well-being (Mazza et al., 2020). In response, a rising in family violence and child abuse-related injuries treated in hospitals has occurred (Cappa & Jijon, 2021), whereas it was also shown that the rate of child abuse and neglect increased across different countries (Roje Đapić et al., 2020). In accordance, despite children's psychological distress directly towards the pandemic (e.g., fear, worry, anxiety, etc., Samji et al., 2022), their internalizing and/or externalizing behavioral problems were also indicated to be correlated with parental factors (Fegert et al., 2020; Lehmann et al., 2022). Hence, to clarify these interactions between parents and children may empower families to protect themselves against the negative impact of Covid-19 pandemic, which is beneficial for the growth of children and adolescents who are at developmental phases both mentally and physically.

Within the context of Covid-19 pandemic, there are a number of empirical studies investigating the current situation of spillover effect from the parental work-life conflict to the children's well-being and/or child maltreatment/abuse. However, there is no systematic review available to collect and summarize the empirical evidence consist of quantitative and qualitative data. To fill this knowledge gap, the purpose of the current review is (i) to identify and analyze the spillover effect from pandemic-related job/financial issues in parents to child's well-being as well as child maltreatment/abuse; and (ii) to summarize and analyze the incorporated mechanisms.

2. Methods

2.1. Search strategy

The current work was registered in PROSPERO. The academic articles were identified by searching the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCOhost, and Scopus which cover the published periods of 1966–2023, 1975–2023, 1982–2023, 1970–2023 respectively (see Fig. 1 ). The Boolean operator was used in the search strategy conducted, with “OR” and/or “AND” used to link search terms, while the asterisk “*” was used as a wildcard symbol appended at the end of the terms to search for variations of those terms. The complete search strategy is described in Supplementary material Table S1.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram: Searching process for studies selection about the pandemic-related spillover effect from parental job/financial issues to child well-being or child maltreatment/abuse.

Note. aIncluded databases of EBSCOhost are Academic Search Alumni Edition, Academic Search Ultimate, British Education Index, CINAHL with Full Text, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), Education Research Complete, ERIC, MEDLINE, APA PsycArticles, APA PsycInfo; bincluded databases of Web of Science are SSCI and A&HCI; cincluded publications of Scopus are both final published and in pre-printed.

We reviewed articles for relevance through screening titles and abstracts. After removing the duplicates and excluding those did not meet the inclusion criteria after abstract reading, the remaining 195 articles were read in full to identify if they met the inclusion criteria. In addition, one research paper was included by checking through the reference lists of six previous published review articles in relevant research area (Biffi et al., 2021; Cappa & Jijon, 2021; Mazza et al., 2020; Posick et al., 2020; Ramaswamy & Seshadri, 2020; Usher et al., 2021). Finally, there were 21 relevant articles identified.

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

The articles included in this review are original studies published in peer-reviewed journals in English with using quantitative and/or qualitative methodology, and therefore providing a higher quality of evidence than a typical case study or case series, which tends to be more subjective. To be eligible, studies reported the spillover effect from parental job/financial issues to child well-being and/or child maltreatment/abuse during the Covid-19 pandemic. The participants in the reviewed studies were children (<18 years old) and/or their parents/caregivers. An article was excluded if (1) the children were (1a) adults; (1b) those had special education need, special healthcare need, chronic diseases, and/or disabilities; (1c) sexual minorities; (1d) those did not live with their parents (i.e., left-behind children); (2) the parents experienced psychopathic or psychiatric issues; (3) the parents/families were the hard-to-reach population (e.g., prisoners, refugee, etc.); (4) the subjects were (4a) family members of front-line healthcare workers during Covid-19 pandemic; (4b) teachers, service providers or pregnant population; (5) the study (5a) is a review article, commentary/editorial, correspondence, or study protocol; (5b) was to develop or validate a scale or a tool; (5c) focused on modelling or projection; (5d) focused on intervention development/evaluation, or investigation of familial protective factors; (5e) investigated the sibling relationship other than parent-child relationship; and/or (5f) focused on other irrelevant topic or unrelated subjects.

2.3. Quality assessment and analysis

The information from the included articles was assessed according to a reported structured questionnaire and its criteria with detailed descriptions of the ratings (Hawker et al., 2002). Furthermore, these eligible studies were listed under a structured frame and the results are shown in Supplementary material Table S2. The two authors independently completed the review process and data extraction, whereas a consensus was reached about the final inclusion, analysis and summary via discussion. In line with the methodology used in the literature (Samji et al., 2022), authors of this review firstly assigned keywords to identify the targeted factors and outcomes in related to the spillover effect during the review of eligible studies. Secondly, any relevant outcomes were extracted from both quantitative analyses (e.g., prevalence, comparison, correlation, etc.) and qualitative interviews (e.g., extracted themes). Thirdly, the extracted information from the listed references was analyzed and summarized using a thematic approach (see Supplementary material Table S3). This table summarized the following information including the place of data collection, type of study design, characteristics of participants, measures/tools used for detection, and key findings in regard to parental job/financial issues, child's well-being, child maltreatment/abuse, internal mediators/moderators, and additional factors of vulnerability. Finally, an overall scope was presented by selecting, connecting and/or comparing the targeted information under the key themes.

3. Result

3.1. Overview of included studies

In total, 21 papers (with 22 studies involved) published between 2020 and 2022 were included in the final analysis and summary (Fig. 1), while the key information of the eligible studies are shown in Supplementary material Table S3. Relevant to parental work-family conflict during the Covid-19 pandemic, the spillover effect on child well-being and/or child maltreatment/abuse across nine countries was reported by the included studies, i.e., USA (12), China (3), Germany (1), Japan (1), Kenya (1), Norway (1), South Africa (1), South Korea (1), and Thailand (1). In terms of study design, it consisted of 15 single-wave cross-sectional survey studies, 3 longitudinal studies, 2 repeated cross-sectional survey studies, 1 single-wave cross-sectional telephonic in-depth interview, and 1 retrospective data analysis. Participants in the reviewed studies included 11,100 adolescents (i.e., 50–51.1 % of these adolescents were girls, aged between 10 and 18 years old), 9144 parents/caregivers (i.e., 48.1–88.8 % of them were mothers or maternal caregivers, mean aged at 34–41 years), and another 7927 parent-children dyads (i.e., 39.1–53.2 % of participating children were boys with mean age at 10–16 years old, and 13.0–29.6 % of participating parents were fathers or paternal caregivers with mean age at 43.7–44.75 years).

Apart from one qualitative study, quantitative methods were utilized in other 21 reviewed studies, where the measured indicators were categorized into six aspects, i.e., parental job/financial issues, health status of both parents and children, parenting attitudes/behaviors, perceived family relationships, child maltreatment/abuse, and children's behavioral problems. In addition to the self-developed questions/scales involved in the individual studies, numerous validated scales were used to collect data, which was specifically listed in Supplementary material Table S3.

3.2. The prevalence of parental work/financial issues during the pandemic

In the current review, an extensive prevalence of the pandemic-related work/financial issues were recorded in the reviewed studies. In South Korea, the national monthly unemployment rate was 3.91 ± 1.15 % during the Covid-19 pandemic (Kim, 2022). In an American sample, the unemployment rate was reported as ∼13 %, which was comparable to the national data in the same time period (Lawson et al., 2020). Moreover, 2.38–48.4 % of participating parents reported job loss in other included studies (Augusti et al., 2021; Ebert & Steinert, 2021; Gonzalez et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021; Wong et al., 2021), whereas a larger proportion of the sampled parents experienced financial difficulties due to the pandemic. In particular, 11.8 % of subjects had food/housing insecurity (Ma et al., 2022); 12.1 % of subjects experienced material hardship (Gonzalez et al., 2022); 25.2 % of subjects had income reduction (Wong et al., 2021); 38.6 % of subjects had financial loss (Rodriguez et al., 2021); and 47.1 % of subjects reported their finances inadequate to meet needs for life (Russell et al., 2020). Furthermore, many more parents were subjected to changes in their working arrangement due to the pandemic. In a German sample, 28.58 % of participating parents changed their work to short-term or furlough (Ebert & Steinert, 2021), whereas only 6.9 % of the sampled Chinese parents reported having no job change during the pandemic (Liu et al., 2022). Accordingly, work-life conflicts were prevalent in parents amid pandemic, i.e., 24.6 % was reported in a Chinese study (Wang et al., 2022).

3.3. The prevalence of child maltreatment/abuse during the pandemic

In terms of child maltreatment, there are five kinds of parental abusive behaviors documented in the included studies, i.e., emotional/physical neglect, emotional/psychological abuse/aggression/threat, verbal aggression or yelling, physical abuse/assault (including spank or hit), and physical/corporal punishment. During the pandemic, 21.8 % and 3.1 % of the students from an American sample reported to experience emotional abuse and physical abuse, respectively (Ma et al., 2022). In Norway, the prevalence of any types of child abuse was 14.9 % reported by the participating adolescents. Specifically, the prevalence of psychological aggression, physical abuse, witnessing domestic violence, sexual abuse, and online sexual abuse was 8.2 %, 2.8 %, 4.6 %, 1.4 %, and 5.2 %, respectively. The abusive behaviors were more prevalent in girls than boys (Augusti et al., 2021). For parents, Lee et al. (2022) reported that 20 % of the participating parents spanked or hit their children in the past 2 weeks prior to the study period. Ebert and Steinert (2021) had an estimated prevalence of physical abuse and corporal punishment in the past month prior to the study period as 1.97 % and 6.58 % in the participating parents. In the study reported by Wong et al. (2021), during Covid-19 pandemic, 42.3 %, 14.8 % and 7.8 % of the sampled parents had psychological aggression, corporal punishment, and severe/very severe physical assault towards their children, respectively. Furthermore, two papers revealed the proportion of parents who used more abusive behaviors by comparison of the data collected prior and during the pandemic. Kerr et al. (2021) found that 37 % of the parents had more yelling to their children, whereas a similar result was obtained by cross-sectional study and longitudinal study both reported by Rodriguez et al. (2021). Data showed that 1.8–26.7 % of parents had more emotional/physical neglect, 11.9–33.3 % of parents had more yelling and/or harsh words, and 5.3 % of parents had more physical abuse towards their children.

3.4. Spillover effect from the parental work/financial issues to child well-being during the pandemic

There are also some studies reporting the spillover effect of the parental work/financial issues on children's well-being (i.e., children's mental/behavioral health, education, socialization, and their perceived quality of self/family life, as defined by UNICEF, 2007). In the study of Low and Mounts (2022), financial stress was significantly positively related to adolescents' loneliness (r = 0.13, p < 0.05) and marginally related to higher adolescents' internalizing behaviors (r = 0.12, p < 0.10). Again, in an American sample, pandemic-related material hardship was significantly related to youth's decline in participation in family activities (β = −0.10, p = 0.02, Gonzalez et al., 2022). Additionally, Wang et al. (2021) reported that parental job loss due to the pandemic positively correlated to the higher negative affect (including feeling sad, anxious, depressed, hopeless, nervous, lonely, and/or scared; B = 0.14, SE = 0.02, ES = 0.14, p < 0.001) and lower positive affect (including feeling grateful, energetic, happy, and/or hopeful; B = -0.16, SE = 0.02, ES = -0.11, p < 0.001) in children. Consistently, Hosokawa and Katsura (2021) reported that parental negative spillover from work to home was significantly related to higher externalizing behavioral problems in children (β = 0.123, p = 0.011), whereas positive spillover was significantly related to lower externalizing problematic behaviors (β = −0.161, p < 0.001) and higher prosocial behaviors in children (β = 0.292, p < 0.001). Furthermore, Pinchoff et al. (2021) reported head of household income loss significantly related to a higher risk of Kenyan adolescents' skipping meals (AOR = 1.7, 95 % CI 1.3–2.2, p < 0.001) and their skipping healthcare services (AOR = 1.8 for partial loss, 95 % CI 1.1–2.8; AOR = 2.4 for complete loss, 95 % CI 1.5–3.8, both p < 0.001).

3.5. Spillover effect from the parental work/financial issues to child maltreatment during the pandemic

Among the included studies, half directly reported the pandemic-related spillover effect of parental work/financial issues on child maltreatment/abuse. This was found across different countries/cultures. In the study by Ma et al. (2022), parents who lost their job during the pandemic had greater risk of physical abuse (adjusted OR [AOR] = 1.57, 95 % CI 1.26–1.97, p < 0.001) and/or emotional abuse (AOR = 1.30, 95 % CI 1.18–1.44, p < 0.001) to their children. In a sample from Thailand, emotional and/or physical abuse increased significantly in children whose parents had employment status change during Covid-19 (p < 0.05), even though those parents had low risk of child abuse before the Covid-19 pandemic (Lev-Wiesel et al., 2022). Again, Lee et al. (2022) reported a greater risk of emotional neglect (AOR = 2.51, 95 % CI 1.23–5.15, p < 0.01) and physical punishment (AOR = 3.75, 95 % CI 1.84–7.63, p < 0.01) in parents who had employment change during Covid-19 pandemic, while income was negatively related to the odds of physical punishment used by parents (AOR = 0.72, 95 % CI 0.58–0.90, p < 0.01). Similarly, in the study of Wong et al. (2021), income reduction and/or job loss in parents was significantly related to severe/very severe physical assaults towards their children (AOR = 3.29–4.05, p < 0.05) but less psychological aggression (AOR = 0.29–0.47, p < 0.05). Moreover, in the cross-sectional study by Rodriguez et al. (2021), parental financial concerns were significantly associated with increased odds of verbal aggression (AOR = 2.00, SE = 0.25, p < 0.001) and combined neglect (AOR = 2.17, SE = 0.27, p < 0.001); in the longitudinal study reported by the same research team, mothers with more household employment loss were assessed to have a higher risk of child abuse than those without such issue (t = 2.01–3.10 in the Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2 and the Brief Child Abuse Potential Inventory score, p < 0.05). Another American study showed that parental job loss positively predicted parents' psychological maltreatment towards their children (β = 1.58 ± 0.72, AOR = 4.86, 95 % CI 1.19–19.91, p < 0.05, Lawson et al., 2020). Again, in Kenya (Pinchoff et al., 2021), head of household income loss was significantly related to adolescents' perception of household tension/violence (AOR = 1.8 for partial loss, 95 % CI 1.3–2.6; AOR = 2.4 for complete loss, 95 % CI 1.7–3.6, both p < 0.001). Furthermore, a study conducted with retrospective data analysis exhibited that 1 % increase in male unemployment rate was correlated to 0.15–0.17 increase in child maltreatment case per 10,000 children during the first year of Covid-19 in South Korea (Kim, 2022). In addition, lower family affluence perceived by children predicted the odds of child maltreatment in a Norwegian study (AOR = 3.49–11.01, p < 0.01, Augusti et al., 2021). Besides, the coincident result was also attained by the qualitative data (Mahlangu et al., 2022), in which the interviewed participants thought that (i) victims of physical violence were mostly experienced by children; and (ii) food insecurity due to job loss and/or income reduction was a key driver of parental violence especially in those families with low socio-economic status.

3.6. Mechanisms of the spillover effect during the pandemic

In addition to the data directly presenting the spillover effect from parental job/financial issues to child's well-being/child maltreatment, seven studies revealed the intermediate variables in regulation of such effect. They are further categorized into three dimensions, parental emotion or mental health issues (including stress, strain, depression, anxiety, worries, sadness, loneliness, frustration or anger, guilt, and gratitude), parenting practice (including parental control or discipline, over-reactivity, laxness, parental hostility, parental involvement, parental warmth, and autonomy granting), and family relationships (including parent-child conflict or closeness, marital relationship). Moreover, a series of cascading interactions were observed during the data analyses, which is merged and integrated as shown in Fig. 2 .

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

The mechanism of pandemic-related spillover effect from parental job/financial issues to child well-being and/or child maltreatment/abuse.

According to the 2-week-interval 4-wave repeated cross-sectional study reported by Shelleby et al. (2022), pandemic-related financial stress and child's problematic behaviors measured in wave 1 were both positively related to the maternal psychological distress revealed in wave 2 (β = 0.29, β = 0.40, all p < 0.01, respectively); and this maternal distress was found to positively related to the maternal negative parenting in wave 3 (β = 0.60, p < 0.01). In turn, negative parenting was positively related to child's problematic behaviors in wave 4 (β = 0.21, p < 0.01). In a 15-day daily-diary study reported by Wang et al. (2021), parent-child conflict mediated the relationship between pandemic-related parental job loss and child's positive affect (indirect effect: B = -0.02, SE = 0.01, 95 % CI 0.04–0.01, p < 0.05) and negative affect (indirect effect: B = 0.02, SE = 0.01, 95 % CI 0.01–0.50, p < 0.05). In a 3-month-interval longitudinal study by Thibodeau-Nielsen et al. (2021), a negative association was found between Covid-19 economic hardship in T1 and child self-regulation abilities in T2 (indirect effect: B = -0.04, SE = 0.02, 95 % CI −0.06 to −0.01, p = 0.02), which was mediated by T2 caregiver stress (β = 0.33, p < 0.001) and following T2 child emotional stress (β = 0.44, p < 0.001).

In other 1-wave cross-sectional studies, similar interactions of the spillover effect from pandemic-related job/financial issues to the well-being of both parents and children were also widely documented. Low and Mounts (2022) reported that parental psychological distress significantly mediated the spillover effect from pandemic-related financial stress to children's internalizing behaviors or children's loneliness with indirect effect as B = 0.06 (SE = 0.02, 95 % CI 0.02–0.10) and B = 0.06 (SE = 0.02, 95 % CI 0.03–0.11), respectively. Moreover, parenting stress was moderated by parental stay-at-home intensity, which also significantly mediated the pathway from the financial stress to children's internalizing behaviors (B = 0.01, SE = 0.01, 95 % CI 0.00–0.03). Furthermore, a significant moderated mediation effect was observed for the full model of financial stress➔parental psychological distress➔parenting stress➔children's well-being (i.e., children's internalizing behaviors: B = 0.01, SE = 0.00, 95 % CI 0.00–0.02; children's loneliness: B = 0.01, SE = 0.00, 95 % CI 0.00–0.02). In the study of Wang et al. (2022), parental mental health difficulties mediated the relationship between parental perception of work-life conflict (during pandemic) and adolescents' well-being (i.e., co-vitality, mental health difficulties, and academic engagement, indirect effect were − 0.053, 0.056, and − 0.076, respectively). Additionally, a series of chain-mediation were also found in the pathway of parents' perceived work-life conflict during pandemic➔parental mental health difficulties➔parenting behaviors (i.e., parental involvement, parental control, and autonomy granting)➔children's well-being (i.e., academic engagement, and children's mental health difficulties). In another study reported by Hosokawa and Katsura (2021), maternal work-family spillover was revealed as significantly related to maternal perceived stress, which was then significantly related to mothers' parenting practices, and finally it resulted in the significant correlation with children's problematic behaviors (i.e., internalizing problems and/or externalizing problems). Again, Russell et al. (2020) showed that the caregiver burden was more reported by caregivers whose financial needs were not met (d = 0.53), whereas parental mental health issues (i.e., generalized anxiety and/or depression) and their perception of child's stress mediated the relationship between caregiver burden and parent-child relationships (i.e., conflict or closeness). Liu et al. (2022) demonstrated that pandemic-related parental job changes significantly moderated the interactions between marital conflict and familial quality of life (i.e., interaction of job changes × marital conflict: B = −0.256, SE = 0.111, p = 0.022). Furthermore, parental well-being or parenting behaviors also singly predicted family conflict and/or child maltreatment in some studies. It was unfolded by Rodriguez et al. (2021) that parental loneliness or worries positively associated with combined conflict in family (β = 0.23–2.78, p < 0.001), physical abuse (i.e., spank/hit, β = 0.25–2.48, p < 0.01), verbal aggression (β = 0.34–2.67, p < 0.001), and combined neglect (β = 0.30–3.21, p < 0.01). Ebert and Steinert (2021) revealed that the increase in parental depression/anxiety was significantly related to the higher odds of corporal punishment to children (OR = 2.07–2.82) and marital conflict (OR = 1.97–3.41). Wong et al. (2021) demonstrated that conflict/violence in marital relationship positively predicted all types of child maltreatment (AOR = 3.72–10.71, p < 0.0001), and parental difficulties in discussing Covid-19 preventive measures with children positively predicted corporal punishment to children (AOR = 1.19, p < 0.05) whereas the parental confidence in managing preventive behaviors in children negatively predicted corporal punishment (AOR = 0.87, p < 0.05) or very severe physical assault to children (AOR = 0.74, p < 0.05).

Despite of the negative results, some studies demonstrated that pandemic-related work arrangement may play a positive role in parenting behaviors and/or parent-child relationship. Wang et al. (2021) found that work-from-home arrangements positively related the increased parenting warmth (β = 0.23, p < 0.01), which positively enhanced the child's psychological well-being (i.e., β of child's positive and negative affect were 0.15 and − 0.04, p < 0.001, respectively). In line with this, Liu et al. (2022) discussed that the flexible work time, work online and work-from-home arrangement may elevate parents' time spent with their children, which provided opportunity to robust their relationship. Consistently, Hosokawa and Katsura (2021) emphasized the positive spillover effect from work to family significantly decreased parental perceived stress (β = −4.981, p < 0.001) or negative parenting practice (β = −2.950, p < 0.001), and increased the positive parenting practice (β = 7.034, p < 0.001), which subsequently decreased the children's problematic behaviors and increased prosocial behaviors in children (β = 4.590, p < 0.001).

3.7. Additional factors potentially enlarged the spillover effect during the pandemic

Based on the analysis of the included studies, parents' gender, children's age or gender, number of children in the family, familial situation prior to pandemic, and parental coping strategies/behaviors may be factors that enlarge the spillover effect. First, it was frequently found that male caregivers/fathers were more sensitive to the aforementioned pathway of spillover effect during the pandemic (Liu et al., 2022; Low & Mounts, 2022; Russell et al., 2020). Second, young age children (≤10 years old) in the family may extend the negative spillover effect during the pandemic (Ebert & Steinert, 2021; Russell et al., 2020). Third, the prevalence of all types of child abuse was higher in girls than boys (Augusti et al., 2021). Fourth, a controversial finding was observed in number of children in family. That is, Liu et al. (2022) reported that interaction effects of job changes and family conflict on familial quality of life were significant only among 1-children family, whereas Ebert and Steinert (2021) indicated that >1 young child in the family may increase the odds of corporal punishment to children (OR = 5.31) compared to the families with only one child. Fifth, the familial situation prior to the pandemic including poor familial finance or low social-economic status (Kerr et al., 2021; Mahlangu et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021), parental mental health issues (Lev-Wiesel et al., 2022), and parents who were at risk of abuse/violence (Augusti et al., 2021; Lawson et al., 2020; Lev-Wiesel et al., 2022), may have a spillover effect more negative than those without these problems. Lastly, parents' coping strategies may also play a crucial role when they were faced with the challenges brought by the pandemic. Studies showed that alcohol/substance use in parents were related to more severe negative spillover effect (Augusti et al., 2021; Gonzalez et al., 2022; Kim, 2022; Lee et al., 2022), whereas positive coping reframing decreased the risk of parental physical abuse to their children (Lawson et al., 2020) or protected family well-being (Gonzalez et al., 2022), even the parents experience job loss or financial insecurity.

4. Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, the current work is the first-ever systematic review using the results of empirical studies to summarize and analyze the spillover effect from parental job/financial issues to child maltreatment during pandemic. Based on the results, a significant spillover effect of pandemic-related job/financial issues in parents was observed in terms of increasing child maltreatment/abuse and decreasing children's well-being. The mechanism included the interactions of parental mental health, parenting behaviors, and family relationships, whereas some factors may intense the vulnerability of family.

Based on this review, the findings from the empirical data are in line with the conceptual models established in the previous literature. In the context of Covid-19 pandemic, this stress-spillover process is capably described as following steps. First of all, parental stress generated from job/financial issues amid the pandemic jeopardized the mental health of parents, which may cause high level of family conflicts and more emotional stress in turn (i.e., the family stress theory, Liu et al., 2022; Prime et al., 2020). At the meantime, parents faced to more challenged situation to keep the positive familial leadership under the stress brought by pandemic-related job/financial issues, which ignited the work-life conflict, exhausted their emotional energy, and increased their use of negative parenting practices (i.e., the role theory, the family stress theory, and the stress-spillover model, Hosokawa & Katsura, 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Prime et al., 2020). Worse, the confinement or the lockdown, the social distancing policy, and the closure of schools/child care centers made the situation fulfilled the requisites of “the perfect storm” for child maltreatment/abuse (i.e., the perfect storm theory, Usher et al., 2021). Subsequently, the harsh or even abusive parenting behaviors (i.e., ineffective parenting) increased the internalizing or externalizing behavioral problems in children, which initiated more parent-child conflicts and ruined the well-being of both parents and children in a loop (i.e., the family stress theory, the bioecological theory, the stress-spillover model, Bakker & Demerouti, 2013; Hosokawa & Katsura, 2021; Liu et al., 2022; Prime et al., 2020). Nevertheless, some positive spillover effect was also demonstrated in the empirical data, which showed that parenting warmth and parent-child closeness increased due to the longer time parents spent with their children via the work-from-home arrangement. Unfortunately, the extracted data also indicated that financial vulnerable family had lower chance to work from home but higher risk of job loss and Covid-19 contradiction when they were compared with those in the class of office-based employees (Wang et al., 2021).

Furthermore, the extracted data of the current review showed an increase of parental abusive behaviors towards their children, which is consistent with the previous finding, i.e., all forms of child maltreatment increased during an economic recession despite of different cultures (Fegert et al., 2020). Amid the Covid-19 pandemic, an elevated number of child abuse-related injuries were documented by hospitals' records, whereas the family violence was analyzed as increased by a review of previous studies (Cappa & Jijon, 2021). However, on the opposite side, a decline in reports of child abuse to police and/or child protective services was found in several studies (Augusti et al., 2021; Kim, 2022; Rodriguez et al., 2021). This implies a danger for children - school closure and disruption of child welfare services during the pandemic confinement may result in shortage of child maltreatment monitoring by traditional reporters (i.e., teachers, school nurses, social workers, etc., Kim, 2022; Rodriguez et al., 2021).

Gender differences and cultural factors may play the important roles in this spillover effect. Mothers are usually considered to take more responsibility of childcare than fathers across different countries. During the pandemic confinement/quarantine, some studies reported that fathers had more parental involvement than they were prior to the pandemic (Adamsons, 2022; Mangiavacchi et al., 2021; Shafer et al., 2020); however, included studies of this review showed that issues at work were more likely to spill over into family for men than women (e.g., child maltreatment, domestic violence), especially for those people holding the values of traditional gender roles (Kim, 2022; Liu et al., 2022; Mahlangu et al., 2022). As a result, these husbands may feel more stressed and present more abusive behaviors towards children than their wives (Kim, 2022; Liu et al., 2022). Moreover, it is evident for collectivistic cultural context to stress the pandemic-related spillover effect in Chinese population. First, job changes enhanced the association between marital conflict and quality of life in one-child family during pandemic (Liu et al., 2022). This indicated that financial issues heavily pressured on Chinese parents who devoted their resource to raise the only one child in their family; in addition, these families had no chance to receive assistance from the child's older sibling(s). Second, Chinese people may take parental control/authority as an expression of love and care. However, during the time of confinement and remote learning at home, adolescents had negative perception towards enhanced parental monitoring/control and the reduced self-autonomy in themselves, although parental involvement increased and parents kept close contact with their teachers (Wang et al., 2022).

The chaos and adversity created by Covid-19 pandemic hampered the well-being of many families. In the literature, the conceptual framework established by Prime et al. (2020) theoretically indicated that building and maintaining the internal closeness of family relationships through optimizing the system of family belief was an approach for protecting families in crisis. Among the protective factors, resilience in parents, children, and family were highlighted by literature (Bates et al., 2021; Jones et al., 2022). Furthermore, interventions to promote resilience in families exhibited promising effects in parenting education/training during the Covid-19 pandemic. For example, a significant long-term effect was accounted for Family Foundation (FF), a 10-year-ago intervention program targeted to teach American parents how to enhance family resilience during parenting (Feinberg et al., 2022). During Covid-19 pandemic, researchers reached participants for a follow-up assessment and compared the result of nonparticipants. It showed that FF participants had significantly lower negative parenting practice, less family conflict, and less children's negative mood and/or behavioral problems. More importantly, FF showed significantly positive impact on the families with vulnerable situation prior to the pandemic in terms of harsh/aggressive parenting behaviors, co-parenting conflict and children's problematic behaviors.

Nevertheless, interventions targeting decreases of negative pandemic-related work-life spillover effect are seldom found, which leaves a knowledge gap in both academics and practice. The current review provided the summarized empirical evidence and scientific mechanisms for future evidence design. Moreover, previous studies also discussed that an adequate support and service monitoring was warranted when an intervention program converted to a regular family service. Additionally, compared to the population-based detriment caused by Covid-19 pandemic, only a very few of people had sufficient resources and opportunities to obtain support of materials and/or emotion, which implies an inequity of resource across the countries/societies. Thus, assistance and support to those vulnerable families is crucial for the integrity of human being. Finally, the Covid-19 pandemic is still prolonged in the present, whereas time-varying variables are changing, therefrom, new challenges emerge over time. The relevant detection and monitoring are remarkably desired in long-term manner and in more populations, which may inform stakeholders and policy makers with more comprehensive evidences, and benefit the communities.

4.1. Strengths and limitations

This study possessed a number of strengths. This systematic review was conducted based on an extensive search in thirteen academic databases. Data extraction and analysis focused on the empirical evidences. Result of this review includes both identification of pandemic-related spillover effect and interpretation of the embedded mechanism. This may contribute to the intervention design for protecting families (especially those families with vulnerable factors) and policy making in response to a social crisis. The current review also has limitations. First, the selected studies were limited for reviewing because (i) only those with specific terms mentioned in the title/abstract were screened for further analysis; (ii) those in a non-English language, with the publication forms as conference abstract, government report, textbook, or unpublished dissertation were not included. Second, there are three major limitations indicated by the reviewed studies, including the study design, unbalanced background information of participants, and reported bias from the participants. In terms of the issues in study design, (1) the cross-sectional study design was commonly used and the causal relationship may not be established; (2) lack of a detailed detection and lack of using a true multi-informant approach may decrease the validity and accuracy of the data; (3) the existence of time-varying variables, the prolonged Covid-19 pandemic, and no detection prior to Covid-19 pandemic for comparison may not be ideal for data interpretation; (4) small sample may hamper the generalization of the study; and (5) the telephonic in-depth interview may deficit the connection between participants and researchers. Regarding unbalanced samples, more female participants than males, high education level, similar occupation status, racial/geographic similarity were discussed as limitations. Thus, a diverse demographics in samples is warranted to enhance the generalization of the studies. Furthermore, due to a convenient sampling method and use of self-reported data in most of included studies, selection bias, recall bias, and/or social-desirable bias were unavoidable.

5. Conclusion

The current review systematically summarized and analyzed the data of empirical studies to present the spillover effect from pandemic-related job/financial issues in parents to maltreatment and well-being in children. The result was consistent with previously proposed models, which showed that (1) a significant positive relationship between the spillover effect to child maltreatment and child's mental/behavioral issues was established; (2) this relationship was intermediated and/or moderated by the interactions of parental mental health issues, parenting practice, and family relationships; and (3) some families with particular factors (e.g., low social-economic status before pandemic, parents had mental health deficit or domestic violent risk prior to pandemic, etc.) may be more vulnerable and sensitive to this pandemic-related spillover effect. This study provides sufficient and comprehensive evidence for future design of interventions targeting on the negative spillover effect of work-life conflict for families in the time of crisis, which is also benefit for policy making and community practice.

Funding

There is no funding involved in this work.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

PPLO, YF, FS and ETCP contributed to the study design and professional consultation. PPLO and YF wrote manuscript. PPLO, YF and CKMC conducted the data collection and analysis. PPLO, YF, FS, ETCP and LMYC reviewed manuscript critically. All authors significantly contributed to the intellectual content of the manuscript.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their deep thanks to Prof. Justin A. Haegele (Department of Human Movement Sciences, Old Dominion University) who helped to edit English and reviewed manuscript.

Footnotes

☆

The current work was registered in PROSPERO (Ref No.: CRD42022352884).

2

Studies that were included in this review were marked with an asterisk (*).

Appendix A

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106041.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (43.6KB, docx)

Data availability

Data will be made available on request.

References2

  1. Adamsons K. COVID-19 and the relationships and involvement of nonresident fathers. Family Relations. 2022;71(3):827–848. doi: 10.1111/fare.12663. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. *Augusti E.-M., Sætren S.S., Hafstad G.S. Violence and abuse experiences and associated risk factors during the COVID-19 outbreak in a population-based sample of Norwegian adolescents. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2021;118 doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105156. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakker A.B., Demerouti E. In: New frontiers in work and family research. Grzywacz J.G., Demerouti E., editors. Psychology Press; 2013. The spillover-crossover model; pp. 55–70. [Google Scholar]
  4. Bates C.R., Nicholson L.M., Rea E.M., Hagy H.A., Bohnert A.M. Life interrupted: Family routines buffer stress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Child and Family Studies. 2021;30(11):2641–2651. doi: 10.1007/s10826-021-02063-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Biffi E., Gambacorti-Passerini M.B., Bianchi D. Parents under lockdown: The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on families. Rivista Italiana di Educazione Familiare. 2021;18(1):97–111. doi: 10.36253/rief-10332. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cappa C., Jijon I. COVID-19 and violence against children: A review of early studies. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2021;116 doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105053. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. *Ebert C., Steinert J.I. Prevalence and risk factors of violence against women and children during COVID-19, Germany. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2021;99(6):429–438. doi: 10.2471/BLT.20.270983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Fegert J.M., Vitiello B., Plener P.L., Clemens V. Challenges and burden of the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic for child and adolescent mental health: A narrative review to highlight clinical and research needs in the acute phase and the long return to normality. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health. 2020;14(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s13034-020-00329-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Feinberg M.E., Gedaly L., Mogle J., Hostetler M.L., Cifelli J.A., Tornello S.L.…Jones D.E. Building long-term family resilience through universal prevention: 10-year parent and child outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. Family Process. 2022;61(1):76–90. doi: 10.1111/famp.12730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. *Gonzalez M.R., Brown S.A., Pelham W.E., III, Bodison S.C., McCabe C., Baker F.C.…Tapert S.F. Family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: The risks of financial insecurity and coping. Journal of Research on Adolescence (Wiley-Blackwell) 2022;1 doi: 10.1111/jora.12776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Griffith A.K. Parental burnout and child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Family Violence. 2022;37(5):725–731. doi: 10.1007/s10896-020-00172-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Gromadai A., Richardsoni D., Rees G. Innocenti Research Brief. UNICEF Office of Research; 2020. Childcare in a global crisis: The impact of COVID-19 on work and family life. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hawker S., Payne S., Kerr C., Hardey M., Powell J. Appraising the evidence: Reviewing disparate data systematically. Qualitative Health Research. 2002;12(9):1284–1299. doi: 10.1177/1049732302238251. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hobfoll S.E. Social and psychological resources and adaptation. Review of General Psychology. 2002;6(4):307–324. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.6.4.307. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. *Hosokawa R., Katsura T. Maternal work-life balance and children's social adjustment: The mediating role of perceived stress and parenting practices. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(13) doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136924. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Jones L.B., Kiel E.J., Luebbe A.M., Hay M.C. Resilience in mothers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Family Psychology. 2022 doi: 10.1037/fam0000985. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. *Kerr M.L., Rasmussen H.F., Fanning K.A., Braaten S.M. Parenting during COVID-19: A study of parents’ experiences across gender and income levels. Family Relations. 2021;70(5):1327–1342. doi: 10.1111/fare.12571. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. *Kim Y.E. Unemployment and child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Republic of Korea. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2022;130(1) doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105474. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. *Lawson M., Piel M.H., Simon M. Child maltreatment during the COVID-19 pandemic: Consequences of parental job loss on psychological and ohysical abuse towards children. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2020;110 doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104709. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. *Lee S.J., Ward K.P., Lee J.Y., Rodriguez C.M. Parental social isolation and child maltreatment risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Family Violence. 2022;37(5):813–824. doi: 10.1007/s10896-020-00244-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lehmann J., Lechner V., Scheithauer H. School closures during the COVID-19 pandemic: Psychosocial outcomes in children - A systematic review. International Journal of Developmental Science. 2022;1-27 doi: 10.3233/dev-220322. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. *Lev-Wiesel R., Dagan Z., Kendel L., Amsalem O.S., Lynton N.R., From A.…Binson B. The impact of lockdowns during the Corona pandemic on parental aggressiveness behaviors. Journal of Loss & Trauma. 2022;27(5):431–447. doi: 10.1080/15325024.2021.1997207. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. *Liu X.H., Bai Y.S., Huang N., Ahmed F., Shahid M., Guo J. Chinese younger parents’ quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic: Do job changes and family conflicts matter? Frontiers in Public Health. 2022;9 doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.758242. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. *Low N., Mounts N.S. Economic stress, parenting, and adolescents’ adjustment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Family Relations. 2022;71(1):90–107. doi: 10.1111/fare.12623. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. *Ma M., Orsi R., Brooks-Russell A. Is household unemployment associated with increased verbal and physical child abuse during the COVID pandemic? Child Maltreatment. 2022;1 doi: 10.1177/10775595221088217. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. *Mahlangu P., Gibbs A., Shai N., Machisa M., Nunze N., Sikweyiya Y. Impact of COVID-19 lockdown and link to women and children's experiences of violence in the home in South Africa. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):1–11. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13422-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Mangiavacchi L., Piccoli L., Pieroni L. Fathers matter: Intrahousehold responsibilities and children’s wellbeing during the COVID-19 lockdown in Italy. Economics and Human Biology. 2021;42 doi: 10.1016/j.ehb.2021.101016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Mazza M., Marano G., Lai C., Janiri L., Sani G. Danger in danger: Interpersonal violence during COVID-19 quarantine. Psychiatry Research. 2020;289 doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113046. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Oostrom T.G., Cullen P., Peters S.A. The indirect health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and adolescents: A review. Journal of Child Health Care. 2022 doi: 10.1177/13674935211059980. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) The impact of COVID-19 on employment and jobs. 2022. https://www.oecd.org/employment/covid-19.htm Retrieved from.
  31. *Pinchoff J., Friesen E.L., Kangwana B., Mbushi F., Muluve E., Ngo T.D., Austrian K. How has COVID-19-related income loss and household stress affected adolescent mental health in Kenya? Journal of Adolescent Health. 2021;69(5):713–720. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.07.023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Pleck J.H. The work-family role system. Social Problems. 1977;24(4):417–427. doi: 10.1525/sp.1977.24.4.03a00040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Posick C., Schueths A.A., Christian C., Grubb J.A., Christian S.E. Child victim services in the time of COVID-19: New challenges and innovative solutions. American Journal of Criminal Justice. 2020;45(4):680–689. doi: 10.1007/s12103-020-09543-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Prime H., Wade M., Browne D.T. Risk and resilience in family well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Psychologist. 2020;75(5):631–643. doi: 10.1037/amp0000660. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ramaswamy S., Seshadri S. Children on the brink: Risks for child protection, sexual abuse, and related mental health problems in the COVID-19 pandemic. Indian Journal of Psychiatry. 2020;62:S404–S413. doi: 10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_1032_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. *Rodriguez C.M., Lee S.J., Ward K.P., Pu D.F. The perfect storm: Hidden risk of child maltreatment during the Covid-19 pandemic. Child Maltreatment. 2021;26(2):139–151. doi: 10.1177/1077559520982066. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Roje Đapić M., Buljan Flander G., Prijatelj K. Children behind closed doors due to COVID-19 isolation: Abuse, neglect and domestic violence. Archives of Psychiatry Research. 2020;56(2):181–192. doi: 10.20471/dec.2020.56.02.06. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. *Russell B.S., Hutchison M., Tambling R., Tomkunas A.J., Horton A.L. Initial challenges of caregiving during COVID-19: Caregiver burden, mental health, and the parent-child relationship. Child Psychiatry & Human Development. 2020;51(5):671–682. doi: 10.1007/s10578-020-01037-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Samji H., Wu J., Ladak A., Vossen C., Stewart E., Dove N.…Snell G. Review: Mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and youth – A systematic review. Child and Adolescent Mental Health. 2022;27(2):173–189. doi: 10.1111/camh.12501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Schnettler B., Miranda-Zapata E., Grunert K.G., Lobos G., Lapo M., Hueche C. Testing the spillover-crossover model between work-life balance and satisfaction in different domains of life in dual-earner households. Applied Research in Quality of Life. 2020;16(4):1475–1501. doi: 10.1007/s11482-020-09828-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Shafer K., Scheibling C., Milkie M.A. The division of domestic labor before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Stagnation versus shifts in fathers’ contributions. Canadian Review of Sociology. 2020;57(4):523–549. doi: 10.1111/cars.12315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. *Shelleby E.C., Pittman L.D., Bridgett D.J., Keane J., Zolinski S., Caradec J. Associations between local COVID-19 case rates, pandemic-related financial stress and parent and child functioning. Journal of Family Psychology. 2022 doi: 10.1037/fam0000996. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. *Thibodeau-Nielsen R.B., Palermo F., White R.E., Wilson A., Dier S. Child adjustment during COVID-19: The role of economic hardship, caregiver stress, and pandemic play. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021;12 doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.716651. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. UNICEF . Innocenti report card 7. UNICEF; Florence: 2007. Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries. [Google Scholar]
  45. United Nations Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all. 2022. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2021/goal-08 Retrieved from.
  46. Usher K., Jones C.B., Bhullar N., Durkin J., Gyamfi N., Fatema S.R., Jackson D. COVID-19 and family violence: Is this a perfect storm? International Journal of Mental Health Nursing. 2021;30(4):1022–1032. doi: 10.1111/inm.12876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. *Wang C., Cheong Y., Zhu Q., Havewala M., Ye Y. Parent work-life conflict and adolescent adjustment during COVID-19: Mental health and parenting as mediators. Journal of Family Psychology. 2022;36(3):325–336. doi: 10.1037/fam0000948. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. *Wang M.-T., Henry D.A., Del Toro J., Scanlon C.L., Schall J.D. COVID-19 employment status, dyadic family relationships, and child psychological well-being. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2021;69(5):705–712. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2021.07.016. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. *Wong J.Y.-H., Wai A.K.-C., Wang M.P., Lee J.J., Li M., Kwok J.Y.-Y.…Choi A.W.-M. Impact of COVID-19 on child maltreatment: Income instability and parenting issues. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(4) doi: 10.3390/ijerph18041501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. World Health Organization WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2022. https://covid19.who.int/ Retrieved from.

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material

mmc1.docx (43.6KB, docx)

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available on request.

Articles from Child Abuse & Neglect are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES