护生旁观者干预计划的有效性
旁观者干预计划对护生约会暴力旁观者效能、行为和意图的影响
研究概览
地位
详细说明
约会暴力被定义为强迫一个人、建立对一个人的权力和控制的倾向。 约会暴力是世界所有国家的一个公共卫生问题(WHO,2021;Kerman & Öztürk,2022)。 根据对大学生进行的研究结果;超过 70% 的学生遭受过约会暴力(Schuster 等人,2016 年;Toplu-Demirtaş & Fincham,2020 年)。 此外,研究表明,约会暴力开始于 25 岁之前(Peterson et al., 2018;Park & Kim, 2021)。 遭受暴力的年轻人可能难以寻求帮助、隐藏暴力并感到有义务维持关系(Park & Kim,2021)。 研究表明,遭受约会暴力的大学生会经历许多负面的身心问题,包括身体伤害、抑郁、焦虑、学习成绩下降以及吸毒和酗酒(Choi et al., 2017)。
减少约会暴力风险的方法之一是关注其他旁观者。 可以看出,为防止暴力而制定的计划是围绕旁观者干预制定的(Banyard 等,2019)。 旁观者干预是一种预防约会暴力的循证干预措施,被定义为“一项针对青少年或年轻人的倡议,他们拥有必要的技能和自我效能,可以在目睹约会暴力和性暴力时安全地进行干预”(Storer, 2016)。 当约会暴力发生时,旁观者可以直接(例如通过呼叫保安、直接干预)或间接(例如通过挑战对约会暴力的消极态度)帮助降低风险(Amar et al., 2015;Banyard et al., 2019;Debnam and Mauer) ,2019;芬尼等人,2022)。 最近的研究发现,应用于年轻人的旁观者干预计划在以下领域产生了统计上显着的结果:(1)关于约会暴力的知识(普遍性、定义等); (2) 对约会暴力的态度(性别歧视态度减少、否认暴力问题的减少、干预信心增加、干预意愿增加、学生采取行动反对暴力的自我效能提高等) (3) 行为改变(暴力实施率下降等)(Amar et al. 2015;Jouriles et al. 2018;Peterson et al. 2018)。 )和(3)行为改变(暴力实施率降低等)(Amar 等人,2015 年;Jouriles 等人,2018 年;Peterson 等人,2018 年)。
护士是护理遭受暴力的个人的第一批干预卫生专业人员之一。 为遭受暴力的个人提供直接护理并倡导将资源集中用于预防暴力是护理的责任和作用之一。 据称,心理健康护士可以在预防计划中应用旁观者教育原则,旨在改变有关暴力的社区规范(Amar 等人,2012 年;Kerman 和 Öztürk,2022 年)。 据称,对于将成为未来卫生专业人员的护理专业学生来说,培养关于目睹暴力时该怎么做的知识、技能和态度非常重要(Barroso-Corroto ve ark.,2022)。 文献中有不同的旁观者干预计划用于防止约会暴力(Debnam & Mauer,2019)。 然而,土耳其尚未针对大学生约会暴力制定旁观者干预计划。 因此,本研究旨在评估针对护生约会暴力而制定的旁观者干预计划的有效性。
研究类型
注册 (实际的)
阶段
- 不适用
联系人和位置
学习地点
-
-
Şişli/Istanbul
-
Istanbul、Şişli/Istanbul、土耳其(türkiye)、34381
- Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa
-
-
参与标准
资格标准
适合学习的年龄
- 孩子
- 成人
- 年长者
接受健康志愿者
描述
纳入标准:
- 年龄在18-24岁之间
- 2023-2024学年护理系在校学生人数
- 填写表格和比例
排除标准:
- 2023-2024学年本院护理系无在校学生(因冻结招生、转学等原因)
- 参加有关预防约会暴力和/或旁观者干预的研讨会/讲习班/小组工作/会议/代表大会/研讨会/培训等
学习计划
研究是如何设计的?
设计细节
- 主要用途:预防
- 分配:随机化
- 介入模型:并行分配
- 屏蔽:无(打开标签)
武器和干预
参与者组/臂 |
干预/治疗 |
|---|---|
|
实验性的:Experimental Group
Participants in this group received the Bystander Intervention Program for Dating Violence.
The program was developed based on the Bystander Behavior Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior and was adapted to the cultural and institutional context.
It aimed to improve nursing students' knowledge and skills for recognizing dating violence and responding safely as bystanders.
The program was delivered to second-year nursing students at Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa Florence Nightingale Faculty of Nursing.
|
The Bystander Intervention Program for Dating Violence was delivered face-to-face as a one-day workshop (10:00-17:00) consisting of five sessions, each lasting approximately 60-90 minutes.
The sessions addressed: (1) dating violence and its types; (2) risk factors and consequences of dating violence; (3) bystander intervention and barriers to intervention; (4) bystander intervention strategies; and (5) self-care for bystanders witnessing dating violence.
The program was based on the Bystander Behavior Model and the Theory of Planned Behavior and was adapted to the cultural and institutional context.
PowerPoint presentations, videos, interactive scenarios, and group discussions were used during the workshop.
|
|
有源比较器:Control Group
Participants in the control group received a single-session educational program on dating violence during the same week as the intervention group.
The session addressed dating violence and its types, causes, myths related to dating violence, the cycle of violence, consequences of dating violence, and prevention.
The session lasted 90 minutes.
After completion of the experimental phase and all outcome assessments, participants in the control group were also offered the five-session Bystander Intervention Program for Dating Violence for ethical and educational equity considerations.
|
Participants in the control group received a single 90-minute face-to-face educational session on dating violence.
The session covered dating violence and its types, causes of dating violence, myths related to dating violence and the cycle of violence, consequences of dating violence, and prevention of dating violence.
The session was delivered during the same study period as the Bystander Intervention Program provided to the experimental group.
|
研究衡量的是什么?
主要结果指标
结果测量 |
措施说明 |
大体时间 |
|---|---|---|
|
Bystander Efficacy Scale
大体时间:Baseline (within one week before the intervention), immediately after completion of the intervention, and at two-month follow-up.
|
The scale used to assess bystander effectiveness was developed by Banyard et al.
The scale includes 18 items.
The participant is expected to indicate his/her degree of confidence by writing a whole number between 0-100 to indicate how confident he/she is that he/she can perform the behaviors specified in the scale.
The calculation is made by averaging all items and the scale has no cut-off point.
High scores indicate a high degree of confidence.
In the study conducted by Banyard et al. (2014), the Cronbach's alpha value of the scale was .93 and the mean was 72.60.
|
Baseline (within one week before the intervention), immediately after completion of the intervention, and at two-month follow-up.
|
|
Intention to Help Scale-Short Version
大体时间:Baseline (within one week before the intervention), immediately after completion of the intervention, and at two-month follow-up.
|
The scale, which assesses the likelihood or willingness of participants to engage in various helping behaviors, was developed by Banyard et al. (2014).
There are two separate subscales by creating separate but parallel items and it consists of 18 items in total.
Participants are expected to rate their likelihood of performing the behaviors using a 5-point Likert-type scale.
The scale is calculated by averaging the answers given to the items.
High scores indicate that the individual is more likely to engage in helping behavior.
Cronbach's alpha value for the short version of the scale was .93 (Banyard et al. 2014).
|
Baseline (within one week before the intervention), immediately after completion of the intervention, and at two-month follow-up.
|
|
Bystander Behavior Scale (For Friends)
大体时间:Baseline (within one week before the intervention) and at two-month follow-up.
|
The scale used to determine the spectator behavior of the participants in the last 2 months was developed by Banyard et al.
The scale has 44 items and includes only spectator behaviors towards friends.
The scale consists of 4 factors.
Participants are expected to mark "Yes", "No" and "Did not meet" for the fulfillment of each item.
In the evaluation, each no sign is calculated as 0 points and each yes sign is calculated as 1 point.
The items that individuals said they did not encounter are not included in the scoring and the calculation is made by taking the average of the answers given to the other items.
Higher scores indicate the types of bystander behavior reported by more people.
Cronbach's alpha value for the short version of the scale was .971
(Banyard et al. 2014).
|
Baseline (within one week before the intervention) and at two-month follow-up.
|
合作者和调查者
调查人员
- 学习椅:Sevim Buzlu, PhD,RN、Istanbul University - Cerrahpasa
出版物和有用的链接
一般刊物
- Rothman EF, Paruk J, Banyard V. The escalation dating abuse workshop for college students: Results of an efficacy RCT. J Am Coll Health. 2018 Aug-Sep;66(6):519-528. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1431909. Epub 2018 Mar 22.
- Storer HL, Casey E, Herrenkohl T. Efficacy of Bystander Programs to Prevent Dating Abuse Among Youth and Young Adults: A Review of the Literature. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016 Jul;17(3):256-69. doi: 10.1177/1524838015584361. Epub 2015 May 6.
- Debnam KJ, Mauer V. Who, When, How, and Why Bystanders Intervene in Physical and Psychological Teen Dating Violence. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2021 Jan;22(1):54-67. doi: 10.1177/1524838018806505. Epub 2019 Jan 22.
- Banyard VL, Moynihan MM, Cares AC, Warner R. How do we know if it works? Measuring outcomes in bystander-focused abuse prevention on campuses. Psychology of Violence. 2014;4(1):101.
- Banyard V, Moschella E, Grych J, Jouriles E. What happened next? New measures of consequences of bystander actions to prevent interpersonal violence. Psychology of Violence. 2019; 9(6):664-674.
- Tekkas Kerman K, Ozturk FO. An examination of gender stereotypes, ambivalent sexism, and dating violence as potential predictors of nursing students' beliefs about intimate partner violence: A cross-sectional correlational study. Nurse Educ Pract. 2022 Jul;62:103346. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103346. Epub 2022 Apr 6.
- Schuster I, Krahe B, Toplu-Demirtas E. Prevalence of Sexual Aggression Victimization and Perpetration in a Sample of Female and Male College Students in Turkey. J Sex Res. 2016 Nov-Dec;53(9):1139-1152. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1207057. Epub 2016 Aug 2.
- Toplu-Demirtas E, Fincham FD. I Don't Have Power, and I Want More: Psychological, Physical, and Sexual Dating Violence Perpetration Among College Students. J Interpers Violence. 2022 Jul;37(13-14):NP11490-NP11519. doi: 10.1177/0886260520951319. Epub 2020 Aug 25.
- Park S, Kim SH. A mixed-method pilot study to test a program for friend-supporters of victims of dating violence. J Community Psychol. 2021 Jul;49(5):1153-1168. doi: 10.1002/jcop.22568. Epub 2021 Mar 29.
- Peterson K, Sharps P, Banyard V, Powers RA, Kaukinen C, Gross D, Decker MR, Baatz C, Campbell J. An Evaluation of Two Dating Violence Prevention Programs on a College Campus. J Interpers Violence. 2018 Dec;33(23):3630-3655. doi: 10.1177/0886260516636069. Epub 2016 Mar 13.
- Choi EP, Wong JY, Fong DY. Mental health and health-related quality of life of Chinese college students who were the victims of dating violence. Qual Life Res. 2017 Apr;26(4):945-957. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1413-4. Epub 2016 Sep 22.
- Finnie RKC, Okasako-Schmucker DL, Buchanan L, Carty D, Wethington H, Mercer SL, Basile KC, DeGue S, Niolon PH, Bishop J, Titus T, Noursi S, Dickerson SA, Whitaker D, Swider S, Remington P; Community Preventive Services Task Force. Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Prevention Among Youth: A Community Guide Systematic Review. Am J Prev Med. 2022 Jan;62(1):e45-e55. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2021.06.021. Epub 2021 Nov 10.
- Amar AF, Tuccinardi N, Heislein J, Simpson S. Friends Helping Friends: a nonrandomized control trial of a peer-based response to dating violence. Nurs Outlook. 2015 Jul-Aug;63(4):496-503. doi: 10.1016/j.outlook.2015.01.004. Epub 2015 Feb 3.
- Jouriles EN, Krauss A, Vu NL, Banyard VL, McDonald R. Bystander programs addressing sexual violence on college campuses: A systematic review and meta-analysis of program outcomes and delivery methods. J Am Coll Health. 2018 Aug-Sep;66(6):457-466. doi: 10.1080/07448481.2018.1431906. Epub 2018 Mar 12.
- Amar AF, Sutherland M, Kesler E. Evaluation of a bystander education program. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 2012 Dec;33(12):851-7. doi: 10.3109/01612840.2012.709915.
- Barroso-Corroto E, Cobo-Cuenca AI, Laredo-Aguilera JA, Santacruz-Salas E, Pozuelo-Carrascosa DP, Rodriguez-Canamero S, Martin-Espinosa NM, Carmona-Torres JM. Dating violence, violence in social networks, anxiety and depression in nursing degree students: A cross-sectional study. J Adv Nurs. 2023 Apr;79(4):1451-1463. doi: 10.1111/jan.15170. Epub 2022 Feb 7.
研究记录日期
研究主要日期
学习开始 (实际的)
初级完成 (实际的)
研究完成 (实际的)
研究注册日期
首次提交
首先提交符合 QC 标准的
首次发布 (实际的)
研究记录更新
最后更新发布 (实际的)
上次提交的符合 QC 标准的更新
最后验证
更多信息
此信息直接从 clinicaltrials.gov 网站检索,没有任何更改。如果您有任何更改、删除或更新研究详细信息的请求,请联系 register@clinicaltrials.gov. clinicaltrials.gov 上实施更改,我们的网站上也会自动更新.