Bullying and HIV Risk Among High School Teenagers: The Mediating Role of Teen Dating Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Teen dating violence (TDV), bullying, and HIV risk behaviors are public health concerns that impact adolescents in the United States. National estimates reveal high rates of these risk behaviors among high school students. Based on theoretical and empirical evidence, we hypothesized that experiencing teen dating violence (sexual and physical) would mediate the impact of bullying on HIV risk. METHODS: Data were from the 2013 National Youth Behavior Risk Surveillance Survey (YRBSS) among students who answered questions on bullying, TDV, and HIV risk (N = 13,571). The YRBSS is conducted biennially among 9th- to 12th-grade students nationally. We used multiple regression analysis and Hayes' SPSS process macro to examine the 2 study hypotheses. RESULTS: Findings from bivariate analysis suggest an association between bullying and HIV risk. The study also found associations between physical, sexual teen dating violence and HIV risk. Results also indicate that both physical and sexual teen dating violence mediate the association between bullying and HIV risk. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that multidimensional interventions should be developed to reduce the rate of teen dating violence and combat bullying as a preventative method for HIV risk among high school students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".