RCT Testing Bystander Effectiveness to Reduce Violence

Ann L Coker, Heather M Bush, Patricia G Cook-Craig, Sarah A DeGue, Emily R Clear, Candace J Brancato, Bonnie S Fisher, Eileen A Recktenwald, Ann L Coker, Heather M Bush, Patricia G Cook-Craig, Sarah A DeGue, Emily R Clear, Candace J Brancato, Bonnie S Fisher, Eileen A Recktenwald

Abstract

Introduction: Bystander-based programs have shown promise to reduce interpersonal violence at colleges, yet limited rigorous evaluations have addressed bystander intervention effectiveness in high schools. This study evaluated the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence and related forms of interpersonal violence in 26 high schools over 5 years.

Design: A cluster RCT was conducted.

Setting/participants: Kentucky high schools were randomized to intervention or control (wait list) conditions.

Intervention: Green Dot-trained educators conducted schoolwide presentations and recruited student popular opinion leaders to receive bystander training in intervention schools beginning in Year 1.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was sexual violence perpetration, and related forms of interpersonal violence victimization and perpetration were also measured using anonymous student surveys collected at baseline and annually from 2010 to 2014. Because the school was the unit of analysis, violence measures were aggregated by school and year and school-level counts were provided.

Results: A total of 89,707 students completed surveys. The primary, as randomized, analyses conducted in 2014-2016 included linear mixed models and generalized estimating equations to examine the condition-time interaction on violence outcomes. Slopes of school-level totals of sexual violence perpetration (condition-time, p<0.001) and victimization (condition-time, p<0.001) were different over time. During Years 3-4, when Green Dot was fully implemented, the mean number of sexual violent events prevented by the intervention was 120 in Intervention Year 3 and 88 in Year 4. For Year 3, prevalence rate ratios for sexual violence perpetration in the intervention relative to control schools were 0.83 (95% CI=0.70, 0.99) in Year 3 and 0.79 (95% CI=0.67, 0.94) in Year 4. Similar patterns were observed for sexual violence victimization, sexual harassment, stalking, and dating violence perpetration and victimization.

Conclusions: Implementation of Green Dot in Kentucky high schools significantly decreased not only sexual violence perpetration but also other forms of interpersonal violence perpetration and victimization.

Copyright © 2017 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT diagram for study enrollment, allocation, and data collection and analysis. aNumber present is the number of students in school on the day of the survey administration by year and condition. Each year all students in the schools were surveyed, thus student numbers differ by year. Individual students are not followed over time. The number of students enrolled defined as those administratively enrolled at each school at the beginning of the academic year across all schools by condition was used as the denominator for response rate calculation reported in text. bRefusals include both student and parental refusal of study participation. cMissing includes students agreeing to participant yet completing no demographic items nor violence or intervention training items. dStudent responses were identified as potentially “mischievous” if there were discrepancies between similar questions (e.g., never drinker reporting binge drinking). eTwo schools initially agreed to participate in the trial and dropped out before randomization. Values for the missing school were imputed from prior year. One intervention school dropped out in Year 4 and one control school dropped in Year 1; the school-level means from the last year of data collection were used as the imputed value. No., number.

References

    1. DeGue S, Valle LA, Holt MK, Massetti GM, Matjasko J, Tharp A. A systematic review of primary prevention programs for sexual violence perpetration. Aggress Violent Behav. 2014;19(4):346–362. .
    1. Black MC, Basile KC, Breiding MJ, et al. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIDVS): 2010 Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC; 2011.
    1. Kann L, Kinchen S, Shanklin SL, et al. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance—United States, 2013. MWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2014;63(4):1–170.
    1. Basile KC, Smith SG, Breiding MJ, Black MC, Mahendra RR. Sexual Violence Surveillance: Uniform Definitions and Recommended Data Elements, Version 2.0. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC; 2014.
    1. Vagi KJ, Olsen EO, Basile KC, Vivolo-Kantor AM. Teen dating violence (physical and sexual) among U.S. high school students. Findings from the 2013 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey. JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(5):474–482. .
    1. Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault. 2014 Apr; . Accessed January 27, 2016.
    1. Banyard VL, Plante EG, Moynihan MM. Bystander education: bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. J Community Psychol. 2004;32(1):61–79. .
    1. Coker AL, Cook-Craig PG, Williams CM, et al. Evaluation of Green Dot: an active bystander intervention to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Violence Against Women. 2011;17(6):777–796. .
    1. Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Plante EG. Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: an experimental evaluation. J Community Psychol. 2007;35(4):463–481. .
    1. Moynihan MM, Banyard VL, Arnold JS, Eckstein RP, Stapleton JG. Engaging intercollegiate athletes in preventing and intervening in sexual and intimate partner violence. J Am Coll Health. 2010;59(3):197–204. .
    1. Potter SJ, Moynihan MM. Bringing in the bystander in-person prevention program to a U.S. military installation: results from a pilot study. Mil Med. 2011;176(8):870–875. .
    1. Gidycz CA, Orchowski LM, Berkowitz AD. Preventing sexual aggression among college men: an evaluation of a social norms and bystander intervention program. Violence Against Women. 2011;17(6):720–742. .
    1. Coker AL, Fisher BS, Bush HM, et al. Evaluation of the Green Dot bystander intervention to reduce interpersonal violence among college students across three campuses. Violence Against Women. 2015;21(12):1507–1527. .
    1. Miller E, Tancredi DJ, MacCauley HL, et al. One-year follow-up of a coach-delivered dating violence prevention program: a clustered randomized controlled trial. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(1):108–112. .
    1. Berkowitz AD. Fostering men’s responsibility for preventing sexual assault. In: Schewe PA, editor. Preventing Violence in Relationships: Interventions Across the Life Span. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2002. pp. 163–196. .
    1. Moynihan MM, Banyard VL. Community responsibility for preventing sexual violence: a pilot with campus Greeks and intercollegiate athletes. J Prev Interv Community. 2008;36(1–2):23–28. .
    1. Potter SJ. Reducing sexual assault on campus: lessons from the movement to prevent drunk driving. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(5):822–829. .
    1. Cook-Craig PG, Coker AL, Clear ER, et al. Challenge and opportunity in evaluating a diffusion-basedactive bystanding prevention program: Green Dot in high schools. Violence Against Women. 2014;20(10):1179–1202. .
    1. Wilkins N, Tsao B, Hertz M, Davis R, Klevens J. Connecting the Dots: An Overview of the Links Among Multiple Forms of Violence. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, CDC; Oak-land, CA: Prevention Institute; 2014.
    1. Bryan JH, Test MA. Models and helping: naturalistic studies in aiding behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1967;6(4):400–407. .
    1. Chekroun P, Brauer M. The bystander effect and social control behavior: the effect of the presence of others on people’s reactions to norm violations. Eur J Soc Psychol. 2002;32(6):853–867. .
    1. Clark RD, Word LE. Where is the apathetic bystander? Situational characteristics of the emergency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1974;29(3):279–287. .
    1. Latane B, Darley JM. The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn’t He Help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1970.
    1. Darley JM, Latané B. Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1968;8(4):377–383. .
    1. Rushton JP, Campbell AC. Modeling, vicarious reinforcement and extraversion on blood donating in adults: immediate and long-term effects. Eur J Soc Psychol. 1977;7(3):297–306. .
    1. Johnson R, Gilchrist E, Beech AR, Weston S, Takriti R, Freeman R. A psychometric typology of U.K. domestic violence offenders. J Interpers Violence. 2006;21(10):1270–1285. .
    1. Lisak D, Miller PM. Repeat rape and multiple offending among undetected rapists. Violence Vict. 2002;17(1):73–84. .
    1. Lisak D, Roth S. Motivational factors in nonincarcerated sexually aggressive men. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;55(5):795–802. .
    1. Rogers EM, Cartano DC. Methods of measuring opinion leadership. Public Opin Q. 1962;26(3):435–441. .
    1. Kelly JA. Popular opinion leaders and HIV prevention peer education: resolving discrepant findings, and implications for the development of effective community programmes. AIDS Care. 2004;16(2):139–150. .
    1. Kauermann G, Carroll RJ. A note on the efficiency of sandwich covariance matrix estimation. J Am Stat Assoc. 2001;96(456):1387–1396. .
    1. The American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 8th. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: AAPOR; 2015.
    1. Robinson-Cimpian JP. Inaccurate estimation of disparities due to mischievous responders: several suggestions to assess conclusions. Educ Res. 2014;43(4):171–185. .
    1. Coker AL, Bush HM, Fisher BS, et al. Multi-college bystander intervention evaluation for violence prevention. Am J Prev Med. 2016;50(3):295–302. .
    1. Miller E, Tancredi DJ, McCauley HL, et al. “Coaching boys into men”: a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a dating violence prevention program. J Adolesc Health. 2012;51(5):431–438. .
    1. Foshee V, Bauman K, Arriaga X, Helms R, Koch G, Linder G. An evaluation of Safe Dates, an adolescent dating violence protection program. Am J Public Health. 1998;88(1):45–50. .
    1. Foshee V, Bauman K, Ennett S, Linder G, Benefield T, Suchindran C. Assessing the long-term effects of the Safe Dates program and a booster in preventing and reducing adolescent dating violence victimization and perpetration. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(4):619–624. .
    1. Foshee V, Bauman K, Ennett ST, Suchindran C, Benefield T, Linder G. Assessing the effects of the dating violence prevention program “Safe Dates” using random coefficient regression modeling. Prev Sci. 2005;6(3):245–258. .
    1. Taylor BG, Stein ND, Mumford EA, Woods D. Shifting boundaries: an experimental evaluation of a dating violence prevention program in middle schools. Prev Sci. 2013;14(1):64–76. .

Source: PubMed

3
購読する