Maya I Ragavan1, Alison J Culyba2, Daniel Shaw3, Elizabeth Miller2. 1. Division of General Academic Pediatrics, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: ragavanm@chp.edu. 2. Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We examined associations between parental IPV exposure, perceived social support, and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) victimization, specifically in a group of marginalized youth. METHODS: Data were drawn from surveys administered to marginalized youth as part of the Healthy Allegheny Teen Survey. Logistic regression examined (1) the association between IPV exposure and social support and (2) how social support influences the association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization. RESULTS: IPV-exposed youth reported lower perceived social support (adjusted odds ratio: .54, confidence interval [CI]: .31-.96). There was a significant association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization (odds ratio: 3.5, CI: 1.5-8.1). However, among youth with higher social support, the association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization attenuated and lost significance (odds ratio: 1.9, CI: .57-6.5). CONCLUSIONS: IPV-exposed youth reported less social support; however, social support may buffer the association between IPV exposure and ARA. Interventions may consider bolstering social support for IPV-exposed youth.
PURPOSE: We examined associations between parental IPV exposure, perceived social support, and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) victimization, specifically in a group of marginalized youth. METHODS: Data were drawn from surveys administered to marginalized youth as part of the Healthy Allegheny Teen Survey. Logistic regression examined (1) the association between IPV exposure and social support and (2) how social support influences the association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization. RESULTS: IPV-exposed youth reported lower perceived social support (adjusted odds ratio: .54, confidence interval [CI]: .31-.96). There was a significant association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization (odds ratio: 3.5, CI: 1.5-8.1). However, among youth with higher social support, the association between IPV exposure and ARA victimization attenuated and lost significance (odds ratio: 1.9, CI: .57-6.5). CONCLUSIONS: IPV-exposed youth reported less social support; however, social support may buffer the association between IPV exposure and ARA. Interventions may consider bolstering social support for IPV-exposed youth.
Authors: Vangie A Foshee; Thad Benefield; Kimberly S Dixon; Ling-Yin Chang; Virginia Senkomago; Susan T Ennett; Kathryn E Moracco; J Michael Bowling Journal: J Youth Adolesc Date: 2015-03-17
Authors: Merrian J Brooks; Michael P Marshal; Heather L McCauley; Antoine Douaihy; Elizabeth Miller Journal: Subst Use Misuse Date: 2016-08-11 Impact factor: 2.164
Authors: Laura Kann; Tim McManus; William A Harris; Shari L Shanklin; Katherine H Flint; Barbara Queen; Richard Lowry; David Chyen; Lisa Whittle; Jemekia Thornton; Connie Lim; Denise Bradford; Yoshimi Yamakawa; Michelle Leon; Nancy Brener; Kathleen A Ethier Journal: MMWR Surveill Summ Date: 2018-06-15
Authors: Catherine A Taylor; Neil W Boris; Sherryl Scott Heller; Gretchen A Clum; Janet C Rice; Charles H Zeanah Journal: J Interpers Violence Date: 2008-03-04