Cyberbullying and Empathy Among Late-Elementary School Children.

There is currently limited research on the relation between forms of empathy and subsequent cyberbullying in middle childhood, a stage in which cyberbullying behaviors are likely to develop. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which affective empathy (experiencing someone else's emotions) and cognitive empathy (perspective-taking) predicted subsequent cyberbullying perpetration in middle childhood. Participants were 105 fourth-and fifth-grade students from two urban elementary schools (M age = 9.66 years, SD = .68). The sample was 66% African American or Black, 15.2% biracial or multiracial, 7.6% Asian or Asian American, and 6.7% Hispanic or Latinx. The sample was evenly divided by gender (51.4% male). Youth completed surveys in the fall (time 1) and spring (time 2) of one school year. Contrary to hypotheses, affective empathy at time 1 did not uniquely predict any form of bullying perpetration (relational, overt, or cyber) at time 2. Cognitive empathy did not predict overt or relational bullying perpetration at time 2. However, higher cognitive empathy at time 1 predicted lower levels of cyberbullying perpetration at time 2. Results suggest promoting cognitive empathy should be a cyberbullying prevention strategy during middle childhood.

What Are We Missing?: Evaluating an Intimate Partner Violence Screening Program in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: Our study sought to explore and assess pediatric emergency department (ED) health care providers' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors surrounding an existing intimate partner violence (IPV) screening program 4 years after initial implementation. METHODS: We used anonymous electronic surveys and telephone interviews to obtain provider perspectives using a mixed-methods analysis. We used χ2 tests to analyze the quantitative survey results, and an unstructured qualitative approach to analyze the telephone interviews. RESULTS: We analyzed 141 survey responses, which correlated to a response rate of about 35% of all the providers reached, and 20 telephone interviews. Our results demonstrate that pediatric ED providers have some knowledge of our existing caregiver IPV screening program in the pediatric ED and universally endorse routine caregiver IPV screening, which both are suggestive of postimplementation cultural shifts. However, reported provider behaviors still indicate selective/targeted screening. For example, many providers reported screening males and nontraditional caregivers less often compared with female caregivers. Reported barriers potentially explaining such screening habits mirror those in existing literature: patient acuity, time, multiple caregivers being present, and more. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates that more research must be done to assess root causes of provider barriers to IPV screening in pediatric ED settings because trainings and a long-standing program do not seem to be changing screening practices. Addressing these issues may lead to truly sustainable and effective IPV screening programs in pediatric ED settings.

Examination of Caregiver Social Factors and Its Influence on Low-Acuity Pediatric Emergency Department Utilization.

OBJECTIVES: Social factors, such as adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), often influence health care utilization. Our study explores the association between caregiver social factors and low-acuity pediatric emergency department (ED) utilization, with the hypothesis that caregivers with high ACE exposure may use ED services more frequently for low-acuity complaints. METHODS: In this case-control study, we performed surveys of caregivers with children aged 1 to 12 years registered for care in our pediatric ED. We defined high utilizers (cases) as those children with ≥3 low-acuity visits in the previous year and low utilizers (controls) as having no prior low-acuity visits, exclusive of the current visit. We compared the proportion of high ACE exposure (≥4 ACEs) between both groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 114 cases and 134 controls. We found no association between number of ACEs and odds of being a case or control (ED utilization). Demographics were significantly different between the 2 groups (ie, caregiver age, race, education, and household income); caregiver ACE exposure was high in both groups (20.2% cases vs 29.1% controls with [≥4 ACEs]). CONCLUSIONS: Although we did not find an association between caregiver ACEs and frequent low-acuity pediatric ED utilization, our data shed light on the overall prevalence of caregiver ACEs in families that seek care in our pediatric ED, even for the first time. Our findings emphasize the risk of conscious bias that can lead to inaccuracy: assuming that it is only high utilizers who experience social stressors. Future work should explore the contribution of structural inequities that influence caretakers' decisions to seek care for their children for low-acuity complaints, and consider types of interventions that could address and mitigate these inequities.