142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition

Annual Meeting Recordings are now available for purchase

308380
A mixed methods proof of concept study to examine the willingness of people in Scotland to intervene if they witness or overhear violence

142nd APHA Annual Meeting and Exposition (November 15 - November 19, 2014): http://www.apha.org/events-and-meetings/annual
Monday, November 17, 2014

Amy Davis, MPhil JD , Yale school of Public Health, New Haven, CT
Fergus Neville, Ph.D. , School of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, Scotland
Damien Williams, BSc(Hons), PhD, FRSPH, AFHEA, MBPsS , School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Scotland
Dr Christine Goodall, BDS (Hons), BSc (Hons), FHEA, FDS (OS) RCPSGlasg, Hon MFPH, PhD , Medical School, College of MVLS, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
Prof Peter D. Donnelly, MD MPH MBA FRCP FFPH , Professor of Public Health Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, Scotland, United Kingdom
Title: A mixed methods proof of concept study to examine the willingness of people in Scotland to intervene if they witness or overhear violence.

 

Background/Purpose: Bystander interventions can successfully reduce the number and severity of episodes of interpersonal violence (IV) including domestic abuse. It is axiomatic that the effectiveness of such interventions will vary according to social norms and other contextual factors. This study explored the circumstances under which people will intervene in a variety of hypothetical IV scenarios, and the reasons that underpin such decisions.

 

Methods:  The study used a mixed methods approach.  Paper-based surveys presented participants in Scotland with eight vignettes which described potentially violent situations and asked participants to indicate how they would intervene and why. In addition, 31 people (14 males; an age range of 18-78 years) participated in one of five focus groups (each comprising around six people) in four different communities in and around Glasgow, Scotland.

 

Results/Outcomes: Survey participants indicated that they would be more likely to intervene where they believed the victim was vulnerable, such as a child or an animal. Moreover, focus group responses suggested that decisions about whether or not to intervene were driven by social taboos against intervening, perceived self-efficacy, and concern about the consequences to the intervener and the victim.

 

Conclusions: It is apparent that there is a need to raise awareness of IV and the role the public can play in reducing the incidence and severity of IV in Scotland. The findings provide insight into when, how, and why members of the Scottish public might intervene in cases of IV. This knowledge is important to inform the development of culturally-appropriate bystander interventions.

Learning Areas:

Social and behavioral sciences

Learning Objectives:
Identify the circumstances under which people in Scotland will intervene in a variety of hypothetical interpersonal violence scenarios, and describe the reasons that underpin such decisions.

Keyword(s): Violence & Injury Prevention, Domestic Violence

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I have been principal investigator or co-investigator on numerous violence prevention projects Concerned with all forms of interpersonal violence. Recently, my research has focused on intimate partner and sexual violence, and the development of interventions.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.