H. Given, Amanda J. Neitzel, Ahmed F. Shakarchi, M. Collins
{"title":"校本视觉计划的校级因素与同意书回复率","authors":"H. Given, Amanda J. Neitzel, Ahmed F. Shakarchi, M. Collins","doi":"10.14485/HBPR.8.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: School-based vision programs provide care directly in schools. Parental consent is typically required for student participation. In this paper, we examine school-level factors associated with consent form return. Methods: We included 123 schools served by a vision program in Baltimore, Maryland between the 2016-17 and 2018-19 school years. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to examine the associations between consent return rate and school type (elementary, elementary/middle or middle school), school size, student attendance, student mobility, percent of students in special education, poverty (percent eligible for free and reduced-price lunch), teacher qualifications, parent response rate to annual school climate survey, vision screening failure rate, and year of vision program participation (cohort). Results: The final model explained 26.2% of variability in consent return rate. Overall consent return rate was 57.8% (range 9.4%-100%). School size (β = -2.419, p < .01) and cohort (βCohort2 = 11.988, p < .01) were significantly associated with consent rate. Whereas poverty (β = 0.225, p < .10) and mobility (β = -0.647, p < .10) were relevant, they did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: School-level factors are significantly associated with consent form return rates. School-based vision programs should consider additional measures to increase consent form return, especially in larger schools and schools with high rates of student mobility.","PeriodicalId":44486,"journal":{"name":"Health Behavior and Policy Review","volume":"8 1","pages":"148-158"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"School-level Factors and Consent Form Return Rate in a School-based Vision Program\",\"authors\":\"H. Given, Amanda J. Neitzel, Ahmed F. Shakarchi, M. Collins\",\"doi\":\"10.14485/HBPR.8.2.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: School-based vision programs provide care directly in schools. Parental consent is typically required for student participation. In this paper, we examine school-level factors associated with consent form return. Methods: We included 123 schools served by a vision program in Baltimore, Maryland between the 2016-17 and 2018-19 school years. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to examine the associations between consent return rate and school type (elementary, elementary/middle or middle school), school size, student attendance, student mobility, percent of students in special education, poverty (percent eligible for free and reduced-price lunch), teacher qualifications, parent response rate to annual school climate survey, vision screening failure rate, and year of vision program participation (cohort). Results: The final model explained 26.2% of variability in consent return rate. Overall consent return rate was 57.8% (range 9.4%-100%). School size (β = -2.419, p < .01) and cohort (βCohort2 = 11.988, p < .01) were significantly associated with consent rate. Whereas poverty (β = 0.225, p < .10) and mobility (β = -0.647, p < .10) were relevant, they did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: School-level factors are significantly associated with consent form return rates. School-based vision programs should consider additional measures to increase consent form return, especially in larger schools and schools with high rates of student mobility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44486,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Behavior and Policy Review\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"148-158\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Behavior and Policy Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14485/HBPR.8.2.5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Behavior and Policy Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14485/HBPR.8.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
摘要
目的:以学校为基础的视力项目直接在学校提供护理。学生参与通常需要家长的同意。在本文中,我们考察了学校层面的因素与同意书的返回。方法:在2016-17学年至2018-19学年期间,我们纳入了马里兰州巴尔的摩市一个视力项目服务的123所学校。使用多元线性回归模型来检验同意回复率与学校类型(小学、小学/中学或中学)、学校规模、学生出勤率、学生流动性、特殊教育学生百分比、贫困(有资格获得免费和减价午餐的百分比)、教师资格、家长对年度学校气候调查的反应率、视力筛查失败率和视力项目参与年份(队列)之间的关系。结果:最终模型解释了26.2%的同意回复率变异性。总体同意率为57.8%(范围9.4%-100%)。学校规模(β = -2.419, p < 0.01)和队列(β cohor2 = 11.988, p < 0.01)与同意率显著相关。贫困(β = 0.225, p < .10)和流动性(β = -0.647, p < .10)相关,但没有达到统计学意义。结论:学校因素与同意书回复率显著相关。以学校为基础的视力项目应考虑采取额外措施来增加同意书的返还,特别是在规模较大的学校和学生流动性高的学校。
School-level Factors and Consent Form Return Rate in a School-based Vision Program
Objective: School-based vision programs provide care directly in schools. Parental consent is typically required for student participation. In this paper, we examine school-level factors associated with consent form return. Methods: We included 123 schools served by a vision program in Baltimore, Maryland between the 2016-17 and 2018-19 school years. Multiple linear regression modeling was used to examine the associations between consent return rate and school type (elementary, elementary/middle or middle school), school size, student attendance, student mobility, percent of students in special education, poverty (percent eligible for free and reduced-price lunch), teacher qualifications, parent response rate to annual school climate survey, vision screening failure rate, and year of vision program participation (cohort). Results: The final model explained 26.2% of variability in consent return rate. Overall consent return rate was 57.8% (range 9.4%-100%). School size (β = -2.419, p < .01) and cohort (βCohort2 = 11.988, p < .01) were significantly associated with consent rate. Whereas poverty (β = 0.225, p < .10) and mobility (β = -0.647, p < .10) were relevant, they did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: School-level factors are significantly associated with consent form return rates. School-based vision programs should consider additional measures to increase consent form return, especially in larger schools and schools with high rates of student mobility.