The co-morbidity of violence-related behaviors with health-risk behaviors in a population of high school students

School of Public Health, University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center 77225, USA.
Journal of Adolescent Health (Impact Factor: 2.75). 04/1995; 16(3):216-25. DOI: 10.1016/1054-139X(94)00067-O
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To describe the frequency of violence-related behaviors and their association with other health behaviors among high school students.
The Youth Risk Behavior Survey was administered to all ninth and eleventh graders (n = 2075) of a school district in Texas. It provided information regarding violence-related behaviors and other health behaviors. Students were classified into four mutually exclusive, violence-related categories according to whether they were involved in a physical fight and/or carried a weapon.
Overall, 20% of the students were involved in a physical fight but had not carried a weapon, 10% carried a weapon but had not been involved in a physical fight, and 17% had been involved in a physical fight and had carried a weapon. Prevalence of weapon-carrying and fighting were higher among males than females, and among ninth graders than eleventh graders. Among males, 48% had carried a weapon the month prior to the survey. Students who both fought and carried a weapon were 19 times more likely to drink alcohol six or more days than students who did not fight nor carried a weapon. Logistic regression analyses showed that drinking alcohol, number of sexual partners, and being in ninth grade were predictors of fighting. These three variables plus having a low self-perception of academic performance and suicidal thoughts were predictors of fighting and carrying a weapon.
The data indicate that violence-related behaviors are frequent among high school students and that they are positively associated with certain health behaviors. Interventions designed to reduce violence should also address coexisting health-risk behaviors and target high-risk groups.

  • Source
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To identify risk factors for fighting, factors that protect against fighting, and strategies to prevent fighting, among adolescents who fight and those uninvolved in fighting. Focus groups were conducted with middle and high school students, stratified by fighting (fighter/nonfighter) status, race/ethnicity, and gender. Groups were audiotaped, transcribed, and analyzed using margin coding and thematic content analysis. Themes were independently identified by 3 coders; disagreements were resolved by consensus. The 65 participants in the 12 focus groups were 13 to 17 years old. Reasons for fighting include self-defense, to gain/maintain respect, or anger; having goals for the future is protective. Nonfighters state that their parents condone fighting only when physically attacked and that they teach adolescents strategies to avoid fighting. Fighters describe mixed messages from parents, and pro-fighting attitudes and modeling of aggressive behavior among some family members. Nonfighters avoid fighting by ignoring insults or walking away. Fighters feel unable to use nonviolent conflict-resolution methods effectively. Peers may instigate or encourage fights. Suggested prevention strategies include anger-management and conflict-resolution programs, relationships with caring adults, and physicians counseling youth about the consequences of fighting. Nonfighters use various strategies to avoid fighting, whereas fighters are aware of few alternatives to fighting. Conflicting parental messages about fighting may enhance the likelihood of fighting. Physicians can counsel youth about the negative consequences of fighting. Interventions that teach anger management and conflict resolution, promote adolescent self-efficacy for using nonviolent strategies, and address parental attitudes about fighting may be effective in preventing fighting. Copyright © 2015 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Academic Pediatrics 01/2014; 15(1). DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2014.06.020 · 2.23 Impact Factor