Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30762156›Full record

Trial reportPrevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research2019

Evaluation of a Bystander-Focused Interpersonal Violence Prevention Program with High School Students.

Katie M Edwards, Victoria L Banyard, Stephanie N Sessarego, Emily A Waterman, Kimberly J Mitchell, Hong Chang

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Evaluating the Impact of a Youth-Led Sexual Violence Prevention Program: Youth Leadership Retreat Outcomes.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Health Promotion Actions and School Violence-A Cluster Analysis from Finnish Comprehensive Schools.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Katie M EdwardsDepartments of Psychology and Prevention Innovations Research Center, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA. katie.edwards@unh.edu.
Victoria L BanyardRutgers University, School of Social Work, New Brunswick, NJ, USA.
Stephanie N SessaregoDepartment of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA.
Emily A WatermanDepartment of Psychology, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA.
Kimberly J MitchellDepartments of Psychology and Crimes against Children Research Center, Durham, NH, USA.
Hong ChangTufts Medical Center, Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

Evaluating a Dating and Sexual Violence Bystander Prevention Program with High School Youth: A Cluster Randomized Control TrialR01CE002542 · CE · UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE · PI EDWARDS, KATIE M · 2014 to 2016
$931k
CDC HHS R01-CEO02524NCIPC CDC HHS R01 CE002542
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the effectiveness of a seven-session, bystander-focused, classroom-delivered curriculum (i.e., Bringing in the Bystander-High School Curriculum [BITB-HSC]) in reducing rates of interpersonal violence among high school students. High schools (N = 26) were randomly assigned to the treatment or control condition. In classrooms in treatment schools, students (n = 1081) completed a baseline survey, participated in the BITB-HSC, and completed an immediate post-test, a short-term post-test (approx. 2 months after intervention), and a long-term post-test (approx. 1 year after intervention). Youth in control schools (n = 1322) completed surveys at similar time points but did not participate in the BITB-HSC. Participants were 15.8 years old on average and largely White (85.1%) and heterosexual (84.5%). Students exposed to the BITB-HSC demonstrated significant short-term changes in victim empathy and bystander barriers/facilitators, and long-term changes in rape myths, media literacy, bystander readiness, and knowledge relative to youth in the control condition. Although the BITB-HSC had little long-term impact on actual bystander behavior, there were reductions in some forms of violence among students in the BITB-HSC condition relative to the control condition. Future research is needed to determine if, for whom, why, and in what contexts (e.g., classroom-based versus school-wide initiatives) bystander-focused violence prevention initiatives reduce violence.

Indexed as

AdolescentCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleNew EnglandSex OffensesSurveys and QuestionnairesViolenceBystanderCluster randomized control trialDating violenceHigh school studentsPreventionRelationship abuseSexual assaultYouth

Identifiers

PMID30762156
PMCPMC6520113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.