Psychosocial study environment characteristics associated with exposure to sexual harassment at a large public university in southern Sweden: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Universities can be understood as work-like environments for students, with similar risks and expectations regarding psychosocial environment. Limited research has examined this study environment from a Demand-Control-Support perspective with regard to sexual harassment. Understanding this environment is key to designing protective measures. This study aimed to examine the association between individual and psychosocial study environment characteristics and exposure to sexual harassment among students at Lund University, Sweden. METHODS: This cross-sectional study utilised data from an online survey conducted among students. Questions on background characteristics, exposure to sexual harassment while at university and psychosocial study environment as measured by a Demand-Control-Support-instrument were used. Bivariate, and multivariable logistic regressions were used, together with Population Attributable Fractions (PAF), and synergy indexes (SI). RESULTS: High demands and low control were independently associated with higher odds of being exposed to sexual harassment among both females and males (OR 1.41, OR 1.26 and OR 1.55, OR1.34, respectively). When adjusting for background characteristics, high study strain (combination of high demands and low control) was associated with exposure to sexual harassment among both female and male respondents (aOR 1.67 and 1.98 respectively) and could account for PAF of 14% and 15% of study environment sexual harassment for females and males, respectively. Low lecturer support was associated with higher odds for sexual harassment among females (aOR 1.19) but not males. Little evidence was found for a buffering effect of student support on high strain and sexual harassment (SI 0.7). CONCLUSION: Working to reduce situations of high strain study environments could be an effective strategy for reducing sexual harassment in university settings. Improving support from lecturers could also modify this relationship, but more research is required to identify causal pathways underlying this result.

Validating a modified instrument for measuring Demand-Control-Support among students at a large university in southern Sweden.

BACKGROUND: University students experience a distinct working environment in the context of completing their studies. In line with existing research into the connection between workplace environment and stress, it is rational to believe that such study environments can affect the level of stress that students experience. However, few instruments have been developed for measuring this. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to validate a modified instrument based on the Demand-Control-Support (DCS) model among students at a large university in southern Sweden to determine its utility for assessing the psychosocial properties of the study environment. METHODS: Data from a survey performed at a Swedish university in 2019, which generated 8960 valid cases, was used. Of these cases, 5410 studied a course or programme at bachelor level, 3170 a course or programme at master level, and 366 a combination of courses and programmes on the two levels (14 missing). A 22-item DCS-instrument for students was used comprising four scales: Psychological workload (demand) with nine items, Decision latitude (control) with eight items, supervisor/lecturer support with four items, and colleague/student support with three items. Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: The results of the exploratory factor analysis of the Demand-Control components support a 3-dimension solution with dimensions corresponding to psychological demands, skill discretion, and decision authority in the original DCS model. Cronbach's alpha coefficients were acceptable for Control (0.60) and Student Support (0.72) and very good for the Demand and Supervisor Support scales (0.81 and 0.84, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the validated 22-item DCS-instrument is a reliable and valid tool for assessing Demand, Control, and Support elements of the psychosocial study environment among student populations. Further research is necessary to examine the predictive validity of this modified instrument.

'One-size doesn't fit all': Understanding healthcare practitioners' perceptions, attitudes and behaviours towards sexual and reproductive health and rights in low resource settings: An exploratory qualitative study.

Although progress has been made to improve access to sexual and reproductive health services globally in the past two decades, in many low-income countries, improvements have been slow. Discrimination against vulnerable groups and failure to address health inequities openly and comprehensively play a role in this stagnation. Healthcare practitioners are important actors who, often alone, decide who accesses services and how. This study explores how health care practitioners perceive sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and how background factors influence them during service delivery. Participants were a purposefully selected sample of health practitioners from five low income countries attending a training in at Lund University, Sweden. Semi-structured interviews and qualitative content analysis were used. Three themes emerged. The first theme, "one-size doesn't fit all' in SRHR" reflects health practitioners' perception of SRHR. Although they perceived rights as fundamental to sexual and reproductive health, exercising of these rights was perceived to be context-specific. The second theme, "aligning a pathway to service delivery", illustrates a reflective balancing act between their personal values and societal norms in service delivery, while the third theme, "health practitioners acting as gatekeepers", describes how this balancing act oscillates between enabling and blocking behaviours. The findings suggest that, even though health care practitioners perceive SRHR as fundamental rights, their preparedness to ensure that these rights were upheld in service delivery is influenced by personal values and society norms. This could lead to actions that enable or block service delivery.