| Literature DB >> 35805868 |
Siriporn Santre1, Tepanata Pumpaibool1.
Abstract
Cyber sexual harassment has been increasing and has become a major public health problem among youths. Therefore, this study primarily aimed to evaluate the effects of a blended learning program on knowledge, attitudes, intention to cope with cyber sexual harassment, behavioral coping strategies, and cyber sexual harassment among female high-school students in Bangkok, Thailand. A quasi-experimental study with a two-group design was conducted from May 2021 to October 2021. A total of 112 students were recruited into either an intervention (n = 56) or a control (n = 56) group. The intervention group participated in a blended learning program for 12 weeks. A self-administered questionnaire was completed by both groups at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and follow-up. Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for data analysis. The mean score of the intervention group in knowledge, attitude, intention to cope with cyber sexual harassment, behavioral coping strategies, and cyber sexual harassment after completing the program and follow-up were significantly different from baseline and the control group (p < 0.05). A positive effect of the blended learning program was observed among female students. Therefore, this program can be useful for victims, supporting their self-confidence with decreased frequency of cyber sexual harassment experiences.Entities:
Keywords: Thailand; blended learning; cyber sexual harassment; female high-school students
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35805868 PMCID: PMC9266109 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19138209
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Overview of program contents.
| Week | Concept and Outcomes | Method | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Getting to know each other |
Icebreaking Warmup |
Pretest Create a Facebook group |
The researcher explained the program, and students introduced themselves. |
| 2. Knowing about cyber sexual harassment |
Knowledge improvement |
Group discussion Lecture in class Facebook group |
Basic information about cyber sexual harassment was discussed. |
| 3. Realizing risk factors and negative consequences |
Knowledge improvement Raising an awareness |
Lecture in class Group discussion Facebook group |
Risk factors and negative consequences were discussed. |
| 4. What if you are the victim |
Knowledge improvement Attitudes |
Quizzes Discussion Facebook group |
Self-protection strategies and ways to prevent online harassment were discussed. |
| 5. Awareness rising |
Attitude Emotional management |
Emotional guessing game Facebook group |
Students worked on enhancing their emotional management skills. |
| 6. Building positive attitudes and girl power |
Knowledge Theory of empowerment |
Positive message Discussion Facebook group |
Empowering students to cope with the problem was implemented. |
| 7. Coping strategies |
Knowledge Development of coping skills |
Quizzes Group discussion Facebook group |
Coping strategies for students were conducted. |
| 8. Taking action and moving forward together |
Knowledge Theory of empowerment |
Discussion Lecture Facebook group |
Students learned the methods to prevent the occurrence of the problem. |
| 9. Lose your fear and find your voice |
Intention to cope with the problem |
Discussion Facebook group |
Motivated students to report the incident to authorities or consult with someone. |
| 10. Stories worth sharing |
Coping strategies |
Discussion Sharing experiences Facebook group |
Students shared their experiences about cyber sexual harassment. |
| 11. Develop campaign slogans |
Intention Behavioral changes |
Discussion Create slogans Facebook group |
Created a message or slogan to encourage others to think before they act online. |
| 12. Summary and evaluation |
Behavioral changes |
Summarize Posttest |
All activities were summarized. |
Comparison of sociodemographic characteristics between the intervention and control groups at baseline.
| Sociodemographic Characteristics | Intervention Group | Control Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.675 a | ||
| ≤2.00 | 5 (8.9) | 8 (14.3) | |
| 2.01–3.00 | 29 (51.8) | 27 (48.2) | |
| 3.01–4.00 | 22 (39.3) | 21 (37.5) | |
|
| 0.557 b | ||
| Heterosexual | 48 (85.7) | 51 (91.1) | |
| Homosexual | 7 (12.5) | 5 (8.9) | |
| Bisexual | 1 (1.8) | 0 (0.0) | |
|
| 0.317 a | ||
| Single | 25 (44.6) | 33 (58.9) | |
| Committed dating relationship | 9 (16.1) | 7 (12.5) | |
| Uncertain dating relationship | 22 (39.3) | 16 (28.6) | |
|
| 0.358 a | ||
| Stay with parent | 29 (51.8) | 34 (60.7) | |
| Stay with father or mother | 23 (41.1) | 16 (28.6) | |
| Stay with relative or guardian | 4 (7.1) | 6 (10.7) | |
|
| 0.489 a | ||
| Married/living together | 23 (41.1) | 27 (48.2) | |
| Separated (not divorced) | 19 (33.9) | 20 (35.7) | |
| Divorced/widowed | 14 (25.0) | 9 (16.1) |
Analyzed with a Chi-square test, b Fisher’s exact test.
Comparison of Internet usage between the intervention and control groups at baseline.
| Internet Usage | Intervention Group | Control Group | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.151 | ||
| About 4–5 h per day | 7 (12.5) | 9 (16.1) | |
| About 6–7 h per day | 19 (33.9) | 10 (17.8) | |
| >7 h per day | 30 (53.6) | 37 (66.1) | |
|
| 0.536 | ||
| 40 (71.5) | 35 (62.5) | ||
| Line | 5 (8.9) | 6 (10.7) | |
| 6 (10.7) | 5 (8.9) | ||
| YouTube | 5 (8.9) | 10 (17.9) | |
|
| 0.171 | ||
| 15:01–18:00 | 6 (10.7) | 4 (7.1) | |
| 18.01–21:00 | 42 (75.0) | 36 (64.3) | |
| After 21:00 | 8 (14.3) | 16 (28.6) | |
|
| 0.609 | ||
| Never | 31 (55.4) | 27 (48.2) | |
| Hardly | 20 (35.7) | 21 (37.5) | |
| Sometimes | 5 (8.9) | 8 (14.3) |
Analyzed with Chi-square test.
Effects of intervention program on knowledge, attitudes, intention, behavioral coping strategies, and cyber sexual harassment.
| Variables | Baseline | Week 12 | Week 20 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | Group | Time | Group × Time | |
|
| 0.028 | 0.014 | 0.022 | |||
| Intervention | 6.61 (1.86) | 7.36 (1.53) | 7.41 (1.56) | |||
| Control | 6.59 (1.87) | 6.63 (1.88) | 6.61 (1.97) | |||
|
| 0.014 | 0.017 | 0.003 | |||
| Intervention | 38.36 (5.33) | 40.43 (4.73) | 40.46 (4.65) | |||
| Control | 39.43 (5.26) | 38.21 (4.72) | 38.25 (4.68) | |||
|
| 0.016 | 0.003 | 0.042 | |||
| Intervention | 39.43 (5.26) | 41.34 (4.62) | 41.84 (4.93) | |||
| Control | 38.09 (5.21) | 39.45 (5.19) | 39.36 (5.26) | |||
|
| 0.031 | 0.004 | <0.001 | |||
| Intervention | 23.30 (2.18) | 24.25 (2.02) | 24.14 (2.08) | |||
| Control | 23.43 (2.22) | 23.34 (2.15) | 23.29 (2.24) | |||
|
| 0.025 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |||
| Intervention | 39.13 (2.55) | 37.02 (3.27) | 37.23 (3.14) | |||
| Control | 38.91 (2.64) | 38.93 (2.56) | 38.88 (2.65) | |||
Analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA. Statistical significance at p < 0.05.