PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: We sought to determine whether the Good School Toolkit-Primary violence prevention intervention was associated with reduced victimisation and perpetration of peer and intimate partner violence four years later, and if any associations were moderated by sex and early adolescent: family connectedness, socio-economic status, and experience of violence outside of school.
METHODS: Drawing on schools involved in a randomised controlled trial of the intervention, we used a quasi-experimental design to compare violence outcomes between those who received the intervention during our trial (n = 1388), and those who did not receive the intervention during or after the trial (n = 522). Data were collected in 2014 (mean age 13.4, SD 1.5 years) from participants in 42 schools in Luwero District, Uganda, and 2018/19 from the same participants both in and out of school (mean age 18, SD: 1.77 years). We compared children who received the Good School Toolkit-Primary, a whole school violence prevention intervention, during a randomised controlled trial, to those who did not receive the intervention during or after the trial. Outcomes were measured using items adapted from the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Child Abuse Screening Tool-Child Institutional. We used mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression, with school fitted as a random-effect to account for clustering.
RESULTS: 1910 adolescents aged about 16-19 years old were included in our analysis. We found no evidence of an average long-term intervention effect on our primary outcome, peer violence victimization at follow-up (aOR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.59-1.11); or for any secondary outcome. However, exposure to the intervention was associated with: later reductions in peer violence, for adolescents with high family connectedness (aOR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99), but not for those with low family connectedness (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.6; p-interaction = 0.06); and reduced later intimate partner violence perpetration among males with high socio-economic status (aOR = 0.32, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.90), but not low socio-economic status (aOR = 1.01 95%CI 0.37 to 2.76, p-interaction = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Young adolescents in connected families and with higher socio-economic status may be better equipped to transfer violence prevention skills from primary school to new relationships as they get older.
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01678846, registration date 24 August 2012. Protocol for this paper: https://www.researchprotocols.org/2020/12/e20940 .
METHODS: Drawing on schools involved in a randomised controlled trial of the intervention, we used a quasi-experimental design to compare violence outcomes between those who received the intervention during our trial (n = 1388), and those who did not receive the intervention during or after the trial (n = 522). Data were collected in 2014 (mean age 13.4, SD 1.5 years) from participants in 42 schools in Luwero District, Uganda, and 2018/19 from the same participants both in and out of school (mean age 18, SD: 1.77 years). We compared children who received the Good School Toolkit-Primary, a whole school violence prevention intervention, during a randomised controlled trial, to those who did not receive the intervention during or after the trial. Outcomes were measured using items adapted from the International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Child Abuse Screening Tool-Child Institutional. We used mixed-effect multivariable logistic regression, with school fitted as a random-effect to account for clustering.
RESULTS: 1910 adolescents aged about 16-19 years old were included in our analysis. We found no evidence of an average long-term intervention effect on our primary outcome, peer violence victimization at follow-up (aOR = 0.81, 95%CI = 0.59-1.11); or for any secondary outcome. However, exposure to the intervention was associated with: later reductions in peer violence, for adolescents with high family connectedness (aOR = 0.70, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.99), but not for those with low family connectedness (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.6; p-interaction = 0.06); and reduced later intimate partner violence perpetration among males with high socio-economic status (aOR = 0.32, 95%CI 0.11 to 0.90), but not low socio-economic status (aOR = 1.01 95%CI 0.37 to 2.76, p-interaction = 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: Young adolescents in connected families and with higher socio-economic status may be better equipped to transfer violence prevention skills from primary school to new relationships as they get older.
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01678846, registration date 24 August 2012. Protocol for this paper: https://www.researchprotocols.org/2020/12/e20940 .
摘要：
背景：我们试图确定良好的学校工具包-初级暴力预防干预措施是否与四年后减少同伴和亲密伴侣暴力的受害和实施有关，如果有任何关联是按性别和青春期早期调节的：家庭联系，社会经济地位,以及校外暴力的经历。
方法：利用参与干预的随机对照试验的学校，我们使用准实验设计来比较在试验期间接受干预的人之间的暴力结果（n=1388），以及在试验期间或之后未接受干预的患者(n=522).数据收集于2014年（平均年龄13.4岁，SD1.5岁），来自卢韦罗区42所学校的参与者，乌干达，和2018/19来自同一参与者，无论是在学校内外（平均年龄18岁，SD：1.77岁）。我们比较了收到好学校工具包的孩子-小学，整个校园暴力预防干预，在一项随机对照试验中，对于在试验期间或之后未接受干预的人。使用国际预防虐待儿童协会和忽视虐待儿童筛查工具-儿童机构改编的项目来衡量结果。我们使用混合效应多变量逻辑回归，学校被拟合为随机效应来解释聚类。
结果：1910名年龄约16-19岁的青少年纳入我们的分析。我们没有发现对我们的主要结局有平均长期干预效果的证据，随访时的同伴暴力受害情况(aOR=0.81,95CI=0.59-1.11);或任何次要结局.然而,接触干预措施与以下因素有关：后来同伴暴力的减少，对于家庭连通性高的青少年(aOR=0.70，95%CI0.49至0.99)，但对于家庭联系较低的人则不然（aOR=1.07，95％CI0.69至1.6；p互动=0.06）；并且在社会经济地位较高的男性中减少了后来的亲密伴侣暴力行为（aOR=0.32，95CI0.11至0.90），但社会经济地位并不低(aOR=1.0195CI0.37至2.76，p交互作用=0.05)。
结论：在有联系的家庭和社会经济地位较高的年轻青少年可能会更好地将预防暴力的技能从小学转移到新的关系，随着年龄的增长。
背景：Clinicaltrials.gov，NCT01678846，注册日期2012年8月24日。本文的协议：https://www.researchprotocols.org/2020/12/e20940。
方法：利用参与干预的随机对照试验的学校，我们使用准实验设计来比较在试验期间接受干预的人之间的暴力结果（n=1388），以及在试验期间或之后未接受干预的患者(n=522).数据收集于2014年（平均年龄13.4岁，SD1.5岁），来自卢韦罗区42所学校的参与者，乌干达，和2018/19来自同一参与者，无论是在学校内外（平均年龄18岁，SD：1.77岁）。我们比较了收到好学校工具包的孩子-小学，整个校园暴力预防干预，在一项随机对照试验中，对于在试验期间或之后未接受干预的人。使用国际预防虐待儿童协会和忽视虐待儿童筛查工具-儿童机构改编的项目来衡量结果。我们使用混合效应多变量逻辑回归，学校被拟合为随机效应来解释聚类。
结果：1910名年龄约16-19岁的青少年纳入我们的分析。我们没有发现对我们的主要结局有平均长期干预效果的证据，随访时的同伴暴力受害情况(aOR=0.81,95CI=0.59-1.11);或任何次要结局.然而,接触干预措施与以下因素有关：后来同伴暴力的减少，对于家庭连通性高的青少年(aOR=0.70，95%CI0.49至0.99)，但对于家庭联系较低的人则不然（aOR=1.07，95％CI0.69至1.6；p互动=0.06）；并且在社会经济地位较高的男性中减少了后来的亲密伴侣暴力行为（aOR=0.32，95CI0.11至0.90），但社会经济地位并不低(aOR=1.0195CI0.37至2.76，p交互作用=0.05)。
结论：在有联系的家庭和社会经济地位较高的年轻青少年可能会更好地将预防暴力的技能从小学转移到新的关系，随着年龄的增长。
背景：Clinicaltrials.gov，NCT01678846，注册日期2012年8月24日。本文的协议：https://www.researchprotocols.org/2020/12/e20940。
