Anderson Jocelyn C, Peruggia Gabrielle, Miller-Walfish Summer, Talis Janine, Burrell Carmen, Hayes Micaela, Miller Elizabeth
Ross and Carol, Nese College of Nursing, The Pennsylvania State University, 201 Nursing Sciences Building, PA, 16802, University Park, USA.
School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 120 Lytton Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Implement Sci Commun. 2023 Jul 31;4(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s43058-023-00467-7.
This study examined campus and clinic factors that may influence likelihood of implementing sexual violence (SV) prevention for college students seeking care in campus health and counseling centers.
Campus-, clinic-, and student-level data were collected from both intervention and control campuses as part of a 28-campus cluster randomized controlled trial. A case series exploratory data analysis assessed differences in the implementation of an SV prevention intervention by campus characteristics.
All large schools were in the top quartile for reporting positive prevention policies regarding SV. At the clinic level, the presence of SV protocols and procedures varied widely with no clear correlation with school size. Students at intervention schools where providers received instruction and tools to facilitate these discussions reported more discussions with providers about SV. Only school size appeared to be associated with positive SV policies on campus and student-reported receipt of SV prevention intervention. Large schools performed well on campus-level policies, yet students reported some of the lowest levels of intervention receipt in the clinics at these larger schools.
Consistency between campus and clinic environments and implementation of the intervention was not observed. Our findings suggest that high performance regarding SV policy and prevention on a campus do not necessarily translate to implementation of appropriate SV prevention and care for students seeking care on campus, including assessments, resources, referrals, and services.
NCT registration: NCT02355470.
本研究调查了校园和诊所因素，这些因素可能会影响为在校园健康与咨询中心寻求护理的大学生实施性暴力（SV）预防措施的可能性。
作为一项涉及28个校园的整群随机对照试验的一部分，从干预组和对照组校园收集了校园、诊所和学生层面的数据。一个病例系列探索性数据分析评估了按校园特征划分的SV预防干预措施实施情况的差异。
所有大型学校在报告有关SV的积极预防政策方面都处于前四分位数。在诊所层面，SV协议和程序的存在情况差异很大，与学校规模没有明显关联。在干预学校中，提供者接受了促进这些讨论的指导和工具培训，那里的学生报告与提供者就SV进行了更多讨论。只有学校规模似乎与校园积极的SV政策以及学生报告的接受SV预防干预情况相关。大型学校在校园层面政策方面表现良好，但学生报告在这些大型学校的诊所中接受干预的水平是最低的。
未观察到校园和诊所环境之间的一致性以及干预措施的实施情况。我们的研究结果表明，校园在SV政策和预防方面的高绩效不一定转化为为在校园寻求护理的学生实施适当的SV预防和护理，包括评估、资源、转诊和服务。
美国国立医学图书馆临床试验注册：NCT02355470。
