Student-Athlete Preferences for Sexual Violence Reporting: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Alice M Ellyson, Avanti Adhia, Emily Kroshus, Davene R Wright
{"title":"Student-Athlete Preferences for Sexual Violence Reporting: A Discrete Choice Experiment.","authors":"Alice M Ellyson,&nbsp;Avanti Adhia,&nbsp;Emily Kroshus,&nbsp;Davene R Wright","doi":"10.1007/s40271-022-00600-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Sexual violence (SV) is prevalent among US college athletes, but formal reports are rare. Little is known about adaptations to institution-level reporting policies and procedures that could facilitate reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey with 1004 student-athletes at ten Division I NCAA member institutions to examine how attributes of the reporting system influence the decision to formally report SV to their institution. Changes in utility values were estimated using multinomial logistic regression and mixed multinomial logistic regression. Importance scores were compared to understand student-athlete preferences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In order of relative importance, the two attributes most preferred by student-athletes were higher probabilities of students perpetrating SV being found in violation of code of conduct policies (relative importance score = 33), and the availability of substance use amnesty policies (relative importance score = 24). Student-athletes with prior SV experiences were more likely to opt out of formally reporting in the DCE paired choice, had lower estimated utility values for all attributes, and had less between-person heterogeneity. While anonymous reporting and survivor-initiated investigations were preferred by student-athletes on average, there was considerable valuation heterogeneity between student-athletes (sizeable deviations from mean estimated utilities). These two attributes also varied in relative importance; anonymous reporting had higher relative importance after interacting levels with prior SV experiences and competitive status, but lower relative importance after interacting levels with whether a student-athlete played on men's or women's sports teams.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Changes to reporting policies and procedures (e.g., transparency about SV reporting outcomes, implementing substance use amnesty policies) may be promising institution-level interventions to increase formal reporting of SV among student-athletes. More research is needed to understand preference heterogeneity between students and generalize these findings to broader student populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":51271,"journal":{"name":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-022-00600-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sexual violence (SV) is prevalent among US college athletes, but formal reports are rare. Little is known about adaptations to institution-level reporting policies and procedures that could facilitate reporting.

Methods: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey with 1004 student-athletes at ten Division I NCAA member institutions to examine how attributes of the reporting system influence the decision to formally report SV to their institution. Changes in utility values were estimated using multinomial logistic regression and mixed multinomial logistic regression. Importance scores were compared to understand student-athlete preferences.

Results: In order of relative importance, the two attributes most preferred by student-athletes were higher probabilities of students perpetrating SV being found in violation of code of conduct policies (relative importance score = 33), and the availability of substance use amnesty policies (relative importance score = 24). Student-athletes with prior SV experiences were more likely to opt out of formally reporting in the DCE paired choice, had lower estimated utility values for all attributes, and had less between-person heterogeneity. While anonymous reporting and survivor-initiated investigations were preferred by student-athletes on average, there was considerable valuation heterogeneity between student-athletes (sizeable deviations from mean estimated utilities). These two attributes also varied in relative importance; anonymous reporting had higher relative importance after interacting levels with prior SV experiences and competitive status, but lower relative importance after interacting levels with whether a student-athlete played on men's or women's sports teams.

Conclusions: Changes to reporting policies and procedures (e.g., transparency about SV reporting outcomes, implementing substance use amnesty policies) may be promising institution-level interventions to increase formal reporting of SV among student-athletes. More research is needed to understand preference heterogeneity between students and generalize these findings to broader student populations.

Abstract Image

学生运动员对性暴力报告的偏好:一个离散选择实验。
背景:性暴力(SV)在美国大学运动员中很普遍,但正式的报道很少。对于如何调整机构一级的报告政策和程序来促进报告,人们知之甚少。方法:采用离散选择实验(DCE)对10个NCAA一级成员院校的1004名学生运动员进行调查,以研究报告制度的属性如何影响向其院校正式报告SV的决定。使用多项逻辑回归和混合多项逻辑回归估计效用值的变化。通过比较重要性分数来了解学生运动员的偏好。结果:根据相对重要性排序,学生运动员最喜欢的两个属性是学生实施SV被发现违反行为准则政策的较高概率(相对重要性得分= 33)和物质使用大赦政策的可获得性(相对重要性得分= 24)。先前有SV经历的学生运动员更有可能在DCE配对选择中选择不正式报告,所有属性的估计效用值较低,并且人之间的异质性较小。虽然学生运动员平均倾向于匿名报告和幸存者发起的调查,但学生运动员之间存在相当大的估值异质性(与平均估计效用有相当大的偏差)。这两个属性的相对重要性也各不相同;匿名报告在与先前的SV经历和竞争状态相互作用水平后具有较高的相对重要性,但在与学生运动员是否参加男子或女子运动队相互作用水平后相对重要性较低。结论:报告政策和程序的改变(例如,对SV报告结果的透明度,实施药物使用大赦政策)可能是有希望的机构层面的干预措施,以增加学生运动员中SV的正式报告。需要更多的研究来了解学生之间的偏好异质性,并将这些发现推广到更广泛的学生群体。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research
Patient-Patient Centered Outcomes Research HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
8.30%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Patient provides a venue for scientifically rigorous, timely, and relevant research to promote the development, evaluation and implementation of therapies, technologies, and innovations that will enhance the patient experience. It is an international forum for research that advances and/or applies qualitative or quantitative methods to promote the generation, synthesis, or interpretation of evidence. The journal has specific interest in receiving original research, reviews and commentaries related to qualitative and mixed methods research, stated-preference methods, patient reported outcomes, and shared decision making. Advances in regulatory science, patient-focused drug development, patient-centered benefit-risk and health technology assessment will also be considered. Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in The Patient may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances. All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信