Trends in Secondary School Practices Related to Violence Prevention, 2012-2018

Overview

Journal J Sch Health

Publisher Wiley

Specialties Health Services
Medical Education
Nursing

Date 2022 May 17

PMID 35581174

Authors

Avanti Adhia

Julia P Schleimer

James Mazza

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Schools are important venues for addressing interpersonal violence among youth. However, it is unclear to what extent school violence prevention practices have been implemented across states and over time. This study examined trends in the percentage of US secondary schools that engaged in practices related to violence prevention (eg, bullying, fighting, dating violence) across 33 states.

Methods: With representative data from 4 waves (2012-2018) of School Health Profiles, we used logistic regression to examine change over time of 5 practices related to violence prevention in school-based settings: professional development for health education teachers (received and would like to receive); increasing student knowledge; and teaching healthy and respectful relationships in grades 6-8 and grades 9-12.

Results: Two practices had rates of adoption >90% across years (tried to increase student knowledge on violence prevention and taught healthy and respectful relationship in grades 9-12). Adoption of professional development on violence prevention for health education teachers was lowest (53%-61% across years). For all practices, most states experienced no change in the percentage of schools implementing violence prevention practices from 2012 to 2018.

Conclusion: Education about healthy relationships in middle school and professional development on violence prevention for health education teachers are needed.

Citing Articles

Exploring Aggressive Behaviors in Greek Secondary Schools: Prevalence, Sociodemographic Factors, and Comparative Analysis with Elementary School Students.

Bourou A, Karkalousos P, Kriebardis A, Papageorgiou E Behav Sci (Basel). 2024; 14(5).

PMID: 38785896 PMC: 11117743. DOI: 10.3390/bs14050405.

References

Selkie E, Fales J, Moreno M . Cyberbullying Prevalence Among US Middle and High School-Aged Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment. J Adolesc Health. 2015; 58(2):125-33. PMC: 4724486. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2015.09.026. View

ONeil A, Sojo V, Fileborn B, Scovelle A, Milner A . The #MeToo movement: an opportunity in public health?. Lancet. 2018; 391(10140):2587-2589. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)30991-7. View

Hahn R, Fuqua-Whitley D, Wethington H, Lowy J, Crosby A, Fullilove M . Effectiveness of universal school-based programs to prevent violent and aggressive behavior: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 33(2 Suppl):S114-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2007.04.012. View

Niolon P, Vivolo-Kantor A, Tracy A, Latzman N, Little T, DeGue S . An RCT of Dating Matters: Effects on Teen Dating Violence and Relationship Behaviors. Am J Prev Med. 2019; 57(1):13-23. PMC: 6953384. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.02.022. View

. Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools?: an evidentiary review and recommendations. Am Psychol. 2008; 63(9):852-62. DOI: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852. View

David-Ferdon C, Clayton H, Dahlberg L, Simon T, Holland K, Brener N . Vital Signs: Prevalence of Multiple Forms of Violence and Increased Health Risk Behaviors and Conditions Among Youths - United States, 2019. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2021; 70(5):167-173. PMC: 7861486. DOI: 10.15585/mmwr.mm7005a4. View

Srabstein J, Berkman B, Pyntikova E . Antibullying legislation: a public health perspective. J Adolesc Health. 2007; 42(1):11-20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.10.007. View

Sitnick S, Shaw D, Weaver C, Shelleby E, Choe D, Reuben J . Early Childhood Predictors of Severe Youth Violence in Low-Income Male Adolescents. Child Dev. 2017; 88(1):27-40. PMC: 5215800. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12680. View

Demissie Z, Rasberry C, Steiner R, Brener N, McManus T . Trends in Secondary Schools' Practices to Support Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Questioning Students, 2008-2014. Am J Public Health. 2018; 108(4):557-564. PMC: 5844405. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2017.304296. View

10.

Harland K, Vakkalanka J, Peek-Asa C, Saftlas A . State-level teen dating violence education laws and teen dating violence victimisation in the USA: a cross-sectional analysis of 36 states. Inj Prev. 2020; . PMC: 8080304. DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043657. View

11.

Rivara F, Adhia A, Lyons V, Massey A, Mills B, Morgan E . The Effects Of Violence On Health. Health Aff (Millwood). 2019; 38(10):1622-1629. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00480. View

12.

Hall W, Chapman M . The Role of School Context in Implementing a Statewide Anti-Bullying Policy and Protecting Students. Educ Policy (Los Altos Calif). 2018; 32(4):507-539. PMC: 6007981. DOI: 10.1177/0895904816637689. View

13.

Cascardi M, King C, Rector D, DelPozzo J . School-Based Bullying and Teen Dating Violence Prevention Laws: Overlapping or Distinct?. J Interpers Violence. 2018; 33(21):3267-3297. DOI: 10.1177/0886260518798357. View

14.

Hatzenbuehler M, Schwab-Reese L, Ranapurwala S, Hertz M, Ramirez M . Associations Between Antibullying Policies and Bullying in 25 States. JAMA Pediatr. 2015; 169(10):e152411. PMC: 6635911. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.2411. View

15.

Crooks C, Jaffe P, Dunlop C, Kerry A, Exner-Cortens D . Preventing Gender-Based Violence Among Adolescents and Young Adults: Lessons From 25 Years of Program Development and Evaluation. Violence Against Women. 2019; 25(1):29-55. DOI: 10.1177/1077801218815778. View

16.

Goncy E, Sutherland K, Farrell A, Sullivan T, Doyle S . Measuring teacher implementation in delivery of a bullying prevention program: the impact of instructional and procedural adherence and competence on student responsiveness. Prev Sci. 2014; 16(3):440-50. DOI: 10.1007/s11121-014-0508-9. View