Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.2307%2F3343168.pdf

Development as Freedom

BULLYING AMONG SCHOOL-AGED youth is increasingly being recognized as an important problem affecting well-being and social functioning. While a certain amount of conflict and harassment is typical of youth peer relations, bullying presents a potentially more serious threat to healthy youth development. The definition of bullying is widely agreed on in literature on bullying.1–4 Bullying is a specific type of aggression in which (1) the behavior is intended to harm or disturb, (2) the behavior occurs repeatedly over time, and (3) there is an imbalance of power, with a more powerful person or group attacking a less powerful one. This asymmetry of power may be physical or psychological, and the aggressive behavior may be verbal (eg, name-calling, threats), physical (eg, hitting), or psychological (eg, rumors, shunning/exclusion).

The majority of research on bullying has been conducted in Europe and Australia. Considerable variability among countries in the prevalence of bullying has been reported. In an international survey of adolescent health-related behaviors, the percentage of students who reported being bullied at least once during the current term ranged from a low of 15% to 20% in some countries to a high of 70% in others.5,6 Of particular concern is frequent bullying, typically defined as bullying that occurs once a week or more. The prevalence of frequent bullying reported internationally ranges from a low of 1.9% among 1 Irish sample to a high of 19% in a Malta study.1,7–12

Bullying takes many forms, and findings about the types of bullying that occur are fairly similar across countries. A British study involving 23 schools found that direct verbal aggression was the most common form of bullying, occurring with similar frequency in both sexes.13 Direct physical aggression was more common among boys, while indirect forms were more common among girls. Similarly, in a study of several middle schools in Rome, the most common types of bullying reported by boys were threats, physical harm, rejection, and name-calling.14 The most common forms for girls were name-calling, teasing, rumors, rejection, and taking of personal belongings.

Research examining characteristics of youth involved in bullying has consistently found that both bullies and those bullied demonstrate poorer psychosocial functioning than their noninvolved peers. Youth who bully others tend to demonstrate higher levels of conduct problems and dislike of school, whereas youth who are bullied generally show higher levels of insecurity, anxiety, depression, loneliness, unhappiness, physical and mental symptoms, and low self-esteem.1–4,8,15–25 Males who are bullied also tend to be physically weaker than males in general.2 The few studies that have examined the characteristics of youth who both bully and are bullied found that these individuals exhibit the poorest psychosocial functioning overall.15,17,19,26

The current research provides a foundation for an understanding of the bullying problem. However, it is insufficient to guide intervention and policy development. Moreover, little is known specifically about bullying among US youth.6 In one county-wide middle school survey, 24.1% of youth reported bullying others at least once in the past semester26; it is not known whether this is characteristic of the rest of the nation.

The purpose of this study was to report the prevalence of bullying in a nationally representative sample of US youth in grades 6 through 10, along with information on differences in the prevalence of bullying by sex, grade, and race. In addition, the relationships among bullying, being bullied, and psychosocial adjustment are explored for 3 distinct groups: bullies only, those bullied only, and those who both bully and are bullied.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/193774/JOC01746.pdf

Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth: Prevalence and Association With Psychosocial Adjustment

Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The cultural origins of human cognition

Using DSM-IV, patients could be diagnosed with four separate disorders: autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, or the catch-all diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified. Researchers found that these separate diagnoses were not consistently applied across different clinics and treatment centers. Anyone diagnosed with one of the four pervasive developmental disorders (PDD) from DSM-IV should still meet the criteria for ASD in DSM-5 or another, more accurate DSM-5 diagnosis. While DSM does not outline recommended treatment and services for mental disorders, determining an accurate diagnosis is a first step for a clinician in defining a treatment plan for a patient.

Autism spectrum disorder

Introduction The term prognosis refers to the likelihood of future health outcomes in people with a given disease or health condition or with particular characteristics such as age, sex, or genetic profile. Patients and healthcare providers may be interested in prognosis for several reasons, so prognostic studies may have a variety of purposes,1–4 including establishing typical prognosis in a broad population, establishing the effect of patients’ characteristics on prognosis, and developing a prognostic model (often referred to as a clinical prediction rule) (Table 1). Considerations in determining the trustworthiness of estimates of prognosis arising from these types of studies differ. This article covers studies answering questions about the prognosis of a typical patient from a broadly defined population; we will consider prognostic studies assessing risk factors and clinical prediction guides in subsequent papers. Knowing the likely course of their disease may help patients to come to terms with, and plan for, the future. Knowledge of the risk of adverse outcomes or the likelihood of spontaneous resolution of symptoms is critical in predicting the likely effect of treatment and planning diagnostic investigations.5 If the probability of facing an adverse outcome is very low or the spontaneous remission of the disease is high (“good prognosis”), the possible absolute benefits of treatment will inevitably be low and serious adverse effects related to treatment or invasive diagnostic tests, even if rare, will loom large in any decision. If instead the probability of an adverse outcome is high (“bad prognosis”), the impact of new diagnostic information or of effective treatment may be large and patients may be ready to accept higher risks of diagnostic investigation and treatment related adverse effects. Inquiry into the credibility or trustworthiness of prognostic estimates has, to date, largely focused on individual studies of prognosis. Systematic reviews of the highest quality evidence including all the prognostic studies assessing a particular clinical situation are, however, gaining increasing attention, including the Cochrane Collaboration’s work (in progress) to define a template for reviews of prognostic studies (http://prognosismethods.cochrane.org/scope-ourwork). Trustworthy systematic reviews will not only ensure comprehensive collection, summarization, and critique of the primary studies but will also conduct optimal analyses. Matters that warrant consideration in such analyses include the method used to pool rates and whether analyses account for all the relevant covariates; the literature provides guidance on both questions.6 7 In this article, we consider how to establish degree of confidence in estimates from such bodies of evidence. The guidance in this article is directed primarily at researchers conducting systematic reviews of prognostic studies. It will also be useful to anyone interested in prognostic estimates and their associated confidence (including guideline developers) when evaluating a body of evidence (for example, a guideline panel using baseline risk estimates to estimate the absolute effect of Summary poIntS

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/350/bmj.h870.full.pdf

Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients.

Reviewing the Literature Planning the Study Selecting the Measurements Calculating the Sample Size Conducting the Study Analyzing the Data Reporting the Results Appraising Research Protocols

Health Science Research: A Handbook of Quantitative Methods

Objectives: To estimate the prevalence of bullying in primary school children and to examine its association with common symptoms in childhood. Design: Semistructured health interview conducted by school nurses as part of a school medical. Setting: Newham, east London. Subjects: All children in year 4 of school during the academic year 1992-93. Main outcome measures: Reported bullying and common health symptoms. Results: 2962 children (93.1% of those on the school roll) were interviewed (ages 7.6 to 10.0 years). Information about bullying was not recorded for 114 children. 22.4% (95% confidence interval 20.9 to 24.0) of children for whom information was available reported that they had been bullied. There was an association between children reporting being bullied sometimes or more often and reporting not sleeping well (odds ratio 3.6, 2.5 to 5.2), bed wetting (1.7, 1.3 to 2.4), feeling sad (3.6, 1.9 to 6.8), and experiencing more than occasional headaches (2.4, 1.8 to 3.4) and tummy aches (2.4, 1.8 to 3.3). A significant trend for increasing risk of symptoms with increased frequency of bullying was shown for all reported health symptoms (P Conclusions: Health professionals seeing primary schoolchildren who present with headaches, tummy ache, feeling sad or very sad, bed wetting, and sleeping difficulties should consider bullying as a possible contributory factor. Key messages Many children report having frequent headaches or tummy aches, that they sleep poorly, wet the bed, or feel sad Children who report these symptoms also report being bullied substantially more often than do their peers Although it is not clear whether the association is causal, health professionals seeing such children should ask about bullying

Katrina Williams

Papers

Autism spectrum disorder

Autism spectrum disorder

Use of GRADE for assessment of evidence about prognosis: rating confidence in estimates of event rates in broad categories of patients.

Health Science Research: A Handbook of Quantitative Methods

Association of common health symptoms with bullying in primary school children