PROTOCOL: Effects of bystander programs on the prevention of sexual assault among adolescents and college students

Abstract

Importantly, there is evidence indicating experiences of sexual assault during these two life phases are related, as victimization and perpetration during adolescence are, respectively, associated with increased risk of victimization and perpetration during young adulthood (Cui, Ueno, Gordon, & Fincham, 2013). Thus, early prevention efforts are of paramount importance. Reviews of research on the effectiveness of programs designed to prevent sexual assault among adolescents and college students have noted both a dearth of high-quality studies, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and minimal evidence that these prevention programs have meaningful effects on young people's behavior (DeGue, Valle, Holt, Massetti, Matjasko, & Tharp, 2014; De Koker, Mathews, Zuch, Bastien, & Mason-Jones, 2014). Concerning the latter point, evaluations of such programs tend to measure attitudinal outcomes (e.g., rape supportive attitudes, rape myth acceptance) more frequently than behavioral outcomes (e.g., perpetration or victimization) (Anderson & Whiston, 2005; Cornelius & Resseguie, 2007; DeGue et al., 2014). Additionally, findings from a metaanalysis of studies assessing outcomes of college sexual assault prevention programs suggested that effects are larger for attitudinal outcomes than for the actual incidence of sexual assault (Anderson & Whiston, 2005). The Bystander Approach Given this paucity of evidence of behavior change, it is imperative that researchers identify effective strategies for preventing sexual assault among adolescents and young adults. One promising strategy is the implementation of bystander programs, which encourage young people to intervene when witnessing incidents or warning signs of sexual assault. The strength of the bystander model lies in its emphasis on the role of peers in the prevention of violence. Peers are a salient influence on young people's intimate relationships (Adelman & Kil, 2007; Giordano, 2003). In some respects, this can be detrimental, as having friends involved in violent intimate relationships (i.e., characterized by sexual or physical violence)

Exploring the Activities and Target Audiences of School-Based Violence Prevention Programs: Systematic Review and Intervention Component Analysis

“…Our intervention component analysis generated a taxonomy of 40 components organized within 13 categories describing not only program activities for students but also other target audiences (parents, teachers, and the larger community) as well as structurally targeted program efforts. See Table 2 for a summary of the critical findings we identified through our analyses, which confirm prior findings (e.g., Gaffney et al, 2021;Kettrey et al, 2019) and also suggest new ways in which DRV/GBV school-based prevention programs could be reexamined, improved or created in the future. See Table 3 for a summary of the major implications for policy, practice, and research based on our findings.…”

“…More recent meta-analyses of school-based DRV and physical/sexual violence prevention interventions report on specific components of interest, such as who presented the intervention (teacher, external staff, or graduate student) (De La Rue et al, 2017) or whether there was some type of parental involvement (Piolanti & Foran, 2022). One recent systematic review and meta-analysis of bystander intervention programs coded for a variety of components, including the format in which the program was typically delivered (in-person, video, web/computer delivered, or ad/ poster campaign); the context of delivery (individual with facilitator, small groups, large groups, or alone); who delivered the program (teachers, school administrators, coaches, peers, medical professionals, external agency staff, or selfguided); and whether the program implementation was monitored or not (Kettrey et al, 2019). While these elements are no doubt important to consider, the rationale for why these elements and not others were coded for as intervention components is not clear.…”

School-based interventions TO Prevent Dating and Relationship Violence and Gender-Based Violence: STOP-DRV-GBV systematic review

“…Previous systematic reviews of interventions for young people have focused on DRV and have not meaningfully considered intervention impacts with GBV. [5][6][7][8] This is important because interventions nominally focusing on DRV may impact GBV and vice versa, underpinned by common mechanisms and structural features that lead to high rates of both in schools. Potentially shared aetiological mechanisms include gender norms at the societal level that are inequity-generating (i.e.…”

School‐based interventions for preventing dating and relationship violence and gender‐based violence: A systematic review and synthesis of theories of change

“…There is no recent systematic review examining the evidence on the effectiveness of school‐based interventions for GBV; systematic reviews published since 2013 have focused on interventions for the prevention of DRV and have not considered intervention impacts with GBV (De La Rue et al, 2017; Fellmeth et al, 2013; Kettrey et al, 2019; Stanley et al, 2015). This is important because interventions nominally focusing on DRV may impact GBV and vice versa, underpinned by common mechanisms and structural features that lead to high rates of both in schools.…”

“…As already noted, the shared mechanisms linking DRV and GBV constitute an important reason to consider these outcomes jointly. Some reviews (De Koker et al, 2014; De La Rue et al, 2017; Kettrey et al, 2019) have excluded important forms of GBV that may or may not occur in the context of dating relationships, such as unwanted sexting, coercive control and sexual harassment. Furthermore, some of these reviews (De Koker et al, 2014; Fellmeth et al, 2013; Kettrey et al, 2019; Lundgren & Amin, 2015) have included interventions across age ranges and settings rather than focusing on interventions in compulsory education settings specifically, which is most relevant to inform policy.…”