MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4400650315 · doi:10.2196/56249

School Violence Exposure as an Adverse Childhood Experience: Protocol for a Nationwide Study of Secondary Public Schools

2024· article· en· W4400650315 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sonali Rajan, Navjot Buttar, Zahra Ladhani, Jennifer Caruso, John P. Allegrante, Charles C. Branas

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Research Protocols · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueGun Ownership and Violence Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
Mots-clésPsychological interventionMental healthAnxietyMedicineSuicide preventionPoison controlObservational studyPsychologyOccupational safety and healthInjury preventionPublic healthPsychiatryClinical psychologyNursingEnvironmental health

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Poor mental health and adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) predict extensive adverse outcomes in youth, including increases in long-term risk for chronic disease and injury, impaired emotional development, and poor academic outcomes. Exposure to school violence, specifically intentional gun violence, is an increasingly prevalent ACE. The anticipation of school shootings has led to the implementation of school safety and security interventions that may increase anxiety, depression, and other indicators of poor mental well-being among students and staff alike. Despite this, the association between exposure to existing school safety interventions and early adolescent student mental health outcomes, while accounting for one's history of ACEs, has not been previously investigated. OBJECTIVE: The study protocol described here aims to determine whether there is a significant difference in the prevalence of mental health outcomes, perceived school safety, and academic engagement between adolescent students (grades 6-12) at schools who have experienced a school shooting and those who have not; whether existing interventions to promote school safety and security are associated with poor mental health outcomes among students and school staff; and what the strength of the association between school safety interventions and mental health outcomes among students and teachers is in schools that have experienced a school shooting versus schools that have never experienced a school shooting. METHODS: This observational study will collect cross-sectional survey data from a nationwide sample of students, teachers, and principals at 12 secondary public schools across the United States. The participants come from 6 randomly selected exposure schools that have either experienced a recent (<2 years ago) intentional school shooting or have experienced an intentional school shooting less recently (>2 years ago). Data from these schools are being directly compared with 6 secondary schools that have never experienced a school shooting. RESULTS: Institutional review board approval for this research project was obtained and the study subsequently began its recruitment and data collection phase in January 2024. Data collection is currently ongoing and the expected completion date is January 2025. The analytic plan is designed to determine if the strength of the association between school safety interventions and mental health outcomes differs among students and school staff in schools with varying levels of school violence exposure. Analyses will be used to evaluate the role of ACEs on the relationships among exposure to an intentional school shooting, exposure to school safety strategies, and student outcomes (ie, mental health and well-being, perceptions of school safety, and educational outcomes). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study promise to generate meaningful and novel findings on the extent to which having a prior history of ACEs moderates the relationships among exposure to intentional school gun violence, school safety strategies, and student outcomes (ie, mental health and well-being, and perceptions of school safety). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06153316; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06153316. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56249.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,010
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Communication savante, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Protocole · Signal consensuel: Protocole
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,565
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0100,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0010,003
Science ouverte0,0020,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,259
Tête enseignante GPT0,598
Écart entre enseignants0,339 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreProtocole

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Research ProtocolsMême sujetGun Ownership and Violence ResearchTravaux en français237 207