ArticleChild and adolescent psychiatry and mental health2024
An intervention study of poly-victimization among rural left-behind children based on the theoretical framework of planned behavior.
Article in Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPoly-victimization (PV) not only threatens physical and mental health but also causes a range of social problems. Left-behind children in rural areas are more likely to experience PV problems. However, there have been fewer studies on PV among rural children, and even fewer intervention studies.
objectiveThe difference-in-differences method was employed to analyze the impact of intervention measures, based on the theory of planned behavior, on PV among left-behind children in rural areas.
methodsThe study subjects were left-behind children from six middle schools in two cities in southern China, who completed the baseline survey from 2020 to 2021. They were divided into a control group and an intervention group, each consisting of 228 cases, based on their schools. Before and after the intervention, the Self-made victimization-related knowledge, attitude, and practice questionnaire, Poly-victimization scale, and Middle school students' coping style scale were used to evaluate the victimization-related KAP(knowledge, attitude, and practice), victimization occurrence, and coping styles of left-behind children, respectively. Stata 15.0 was used to establish a difference-in-differences regression model to analyze the impact of the intervention measures on poly-victimization and coping styles.
resultsMixed Anova revealed that after the intervention, the KAP scores of the intervention group were significantly higher than those of the control group (p < 0.05). After the intervention, the incidence of child victimization in the intervention group dropped to 9.60% (n = 22), lower than in the baseline survey, with a statistically significant difference (p < 0.01). The incidence of PV among children in the intervention group was lower than that in the control group, with the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.01). The net reduction in the incidence of PV among children was 21.20%. After the intervention, the protection rate for preventing PV among children was 73.33%, and the effect index was 3.75. The intervention improved children's coping styles, problem-solving, and help-seeking, while reducing negative coping styles such as avoidance and venting, with the differences being statistically significant (p < 0.05).
conclusionIntervention measures based on the theory of planned behavior reduce the occurrence of PV among left-behind children, and the intervention effects on different types of victimization are also different.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.