Addressing LGBTQ Student Bullying in Massachusetts Schools: Perspectives of LGBTQ Students and School Health Professionals.
Addressing LGBTQ Student Bullying in Massachusetts Schools: Perspectives of LGBTQ Students and School Health Professionals.
复制标题
解决马萨诸塞州学校中 LGBTQ 学生欺凌问题：LGBTQ 学生和学校卫生专业人员的观点。
DOI：
10.1007/s11121-019-01084-4
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Earnshaw,ValerieA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Reisner,SariL;Sava,LaurenM;Menino,DavidD;Perrotti,Jeff;Barnes,TiaN;Humphrey,DLayne;Nikitin,RuslanV;Earnshaw,ValerieA
女同性恋者、男同性恋者、双性恋者、变性人、酷儿/质问者(LGBTQ)青少年在欺凌受害方面的差异与更高的身体伤害、心理困扰甚至自杀率有关。需要采取创新战略来解决欺凌受害者问题，以防止不利的身心健康后果，包括那些聘用学校卫生专业人员(保健专业人员、学校护士、心理学家)的结果。这项混合方法研究试图从LGBTQ学生和SHPS的角度找出促进或阻碍SHPS报告和应对马萨诸塞州LGBTQ欺凌的因素。在2017年8月至2018年7月期间，马萨诸塞州的28名LGBTQ学生和19名SHPS(每组9-12名参与者；n= 47名注册)分别进行了异步在线焦点小组讨论和简短调查。焦点小组探讨了欺凌的经历。快速定性调查被用于对青少年和SHPS所描述的LGBTQ学生欺凌行为的促进者和障碍进行主题编码。促进者和障碍在很大程度上结合在社会生态模式周围。青年和社会保障计划确定了社会生态模式多个层面的因素：(1)个人(知识、技能、态度)；(2)人际关系(信任和跟进、保密和害怕被“暴露”、亲密关系、支持社会保障计划)；以及(3)结构(学校认同、时间、报告和协议、工作人员角色、资源和包容性的学校文化)。LGBTQ学生表示，在解决LGBTQ学生欺凌问题时，需要一种用于SHPS的交叉镜头。需要采取干预措施，帮助卫生与公众服务部克服多层次的障碍并利用促进者。考虑交叉性将使SHPS更好地支持LGBTQ学生，并解决LGBTQ学生欺凌方面的差异，从而带来健康风险。
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/questioning (LGBTQ) youth face disparities in bullying victimization are associated with higher rates of physical injury, psychological distress, and even suicide. Innovative strategies to address bullying victimization are needed to prevent adverse physical and mental health outcomes, including those engaging school health professionals (SHPs; school nurses, psychologists). This mixed-methods study sought to identify factors that facilitate or impede SHPs’ reporting and responding to LGBTQ bullying in Massachusetts from the perspectives of LGBTQ students and SHPs. Between August 2017 and July 2018, asynchronous online focus group discussions and a brief survey were conducted separately for 28 LGBTQ students and 19 SHPs in Massachusetts (9–12 participants per group;n= 47 enrolled). Focus groups probed on bullying experiences. Rapid qualitative inquiry was used for thematic coding of facilitators and barriers to address LGBTQ student bullying described by youth and SHPs. Facilitators and barriers largely coalesced around the social ecological model. Youth and SHPs identified factors at multiple levels of the social ecological model: (1) individual (knowledge, skills, attitudes); (2) interpersonal (trust and follow-through, confidentiality and fear of being “outed,” close relationships, champion SHPs); and (3) structural (school buy-in, time, reporting and protocols, staff roles, resources, and school culture of inclusivity). LGBTQ students expressed a need for an intersectional lens for SHPs when addressing LGBTQ student bullying. Interventions that help SHPs overcome multilevel barriers and leverage facilitators are needed. Consideration of intersectionality will better equip SHPs to support LGBTQ students and address disparities in LGBTQ student bullying that confer health risks.