Mapping Two Decades of Childhood Emotional Abuse Research: A Global Bibliometric Analysis (2005–2024)

Hossein  Alizadeh; Mohammad Ali  Mazaheri; Masoumeh  Mousavi

doi:10.18502/ijps.v20i4.19690

Hossein Alizadeh Department of Clinical Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Mohammad Ali Mazaheri Department of Clinical Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Masoumeh Mousavi Department of Clinical Psychology, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/ijps.v20i4.19690

Keywords: Adverse Childhood Experiences; Bibliometrics; Child Abuse; Emotional Abuse; Mental Health

Abstract

Objective: Child emotional abuse (CEA) is associated with a wide range of detrimental consequences, both in childhood and adulthood. Despite its widespread prevalence and long-term impact, it has historically received less scholarly attention compared to physical and sexual abuse. To address this gap, his study presents the first global bibliometric analysis of CEA research from 2005–2024, mapping its evolution, thematic trends, and geographical distribution.

Method: Using Scopus and PubMed, 1,040 articles and reviews in English were analyzed via the R-based Bibliometrix package. Descriptive, network, and thematic analyses identified publication patterns, collaboration networks, and conceptual trends.

Results: Publications on CEA have risen sharply since 2018, with psychology, medicine, and psychiatry dominating the field. The United States, China, and Canada are the most productive countries, while many Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) remain underrepresented (e.g., Iran 0.96%). Trend analyses reveal a thematic shift from immediate psychological distress toward developmental mechanisms, transdiagnostic constructs (e.g., early maladaptive schemas), and culturally contextual factors. Thematic mapping shows underdeveloped core areas (e.g., depression, child trauma), well-developed motor themes (e.g., early maladaptive schemas, meta-analysis), and niche/emerging topics (e.g., fMRI, gene–environment interaction).

Conclusion: CEA research is expanding toward integrative, culturally informed, and mechanism-focused frameworks, but definitional, methodological, and geographical gaps persist. Targeted investment in LMIC research, validated and culturally adapted tools, interdisciplinary collaboration, and prevention-oriented strategies are urgently needed.