Gabriela N Mujal1, Meghan E Taylor2, Jessica L Fry2, Tatiana H Gochez-Kerr3, Nancy L Weaver2. 1. Department of Health Management and Policy, 40272College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 2. Department of Behavioral Science and Health Education, 40272College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA. 3. School of Social Work, 40272College for Public Health and Social Justice, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Bystander interventions have been successful in changing bystander attitudes and behaviors to prevent sexual violence. This systematic review was performed to summarize and categorize the characteristics of sexual violence bystander intervention programs and analyze bystander intervention training approaches for the primary prevention of sexual violence and assault. METHOD: From June to July 2017, the authors searched both published and unpublished American and Canadian studies from 2007 to 2017. The published sources included six major electronic databases and the unpublished sources were Google Scholar and the 40 program websites. From the 706 studies that resulted from this initial search, a total of 44 studies (that included a single bystander intervention program and assessments at both pretest and at least one posttest) were included. RESULTS: Thirty-two percent of studies analyzed bystander behavior postintervention, and most found significant beneficial outcomes. The most frequently used training methods were presentation, discussion, and active learning exercises. Bringing in the Bystander and The Men's Program had the most replicated empirical support for effectiveness. DISCUSSION: There has been a substantive increase in quasi-experimental and randomized controlled trial approaches to assessing the effectiveness of this type of intervention since 2014. The training methods shared between these efficacious programs may translate to bystander interventions for other victimization types, such as child abuse. CONCLUSION: The use of in-person bystander training can make positive changes in attitudes and behaviors by increasing awareness of a problem and responsibility to solve it.
INTRODUCTION: Bystander interventions have been successful in changing bystander attitudes and behaviors to prevent sexual violence. This systematic review was performed to summarize and categorize the characteristics of sexual violence bystander intervention programs and analyze bystander intervention training approaches for the primary prevention of sexual violence and assault. METHOD: From June to July 2017, the authors searched both published and unpublished American and Canadian studies from 2007 to 2017. The published sources included six major electronic databases and the unpublished sources were Google Scholar and the 40 program websites. From the 706 studies that resulted from this initial search, a total of 44 studies (that included a single bystander intervention program and assessments at both pretest and at least one posttest) were included. RESULTS: Thirty-two percent of studies analyzed bystander behavior postintervention, and most found significant beneficial outcomes. The most frequently used training methods were presentation, discussion, and active learning exercises. Bringing in the Bystander and The Men's Program had the most replicated empirical support for effectiveness. DISCUSSION: There has been a substantive increase in quasi-experimental and randomized controlled trial approaches to assessing the effectiveness of this type of intervention since 2014. The training methods shared between these efficacious programs may translate to bystander interventions for other victimization types, such as child abuse. CONCLUSION: The use of in-person bystander training can make positive changes in attitudes and behaviors by increasing awareness of a problem and responsibility to solve it.
Entities:
Keywords:
bystander intervention; sexual assault; sexual violence; systematic review; violence prevention
Authors: Ramona K C Finnie; Devon L Okasako-Schmucker; Leigh Buchanan; Denise Carty; Holly Wethington; Shawna L Mercer; Kathleen C Basile; Sarah DeGue; Phyllis Holditch Niolon; Jennifer Bishop; Tisha Titus; Samia Noursi; Shavon Artis Dickerson; Daniel Whitaker; Susan Swider; Patrick Remington Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2021-11-10 Impact factor: 6.604
Authors: Erin E Bonar; Sarah DeGue; Antonia Abbey; Ann L Coker; Christine H Lindquist; Heather L McCauley; Elizabeth Miller; Charlene Y Senn; Martie P Thompson; Quyen M Ngo; Rebecca M Cunningham; Maureen A Walton Journal: J Am Coll Health Date: 2020-05-14