Dating violence among adolescents presenting to a pediatric emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and characteristics of dating violence experienced by adolescents seeking care in a pediatric emergency department and how often adolescents reporting victimization follow up with suggested resources. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: An urban pediatric emergency department. PARTICIPANTS: Of 327 participants, 235 (71.9%) were female and 92 (28.1%) were male, with a mean (SE) age of 18.7 (0.10) years. INTERVENTIONS: Adolescents aged 13 to 21 years completed a survey including demographic characteristics and a validated measure of dating violence. Those reporting victimization received information about local resources and were contacted 1 month later by telephone to determine their use of local resources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Dating violence exposure and subsequent use of resources. RESULTS: Among the adolescents, 54.8% reported physical and/or sexual victimization (54.0% of girls vs 56.7% of boys; odds ratio = 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6-1.5), and 59.4% reported perpetration of physical and/or sexual violence (62.1% of girls vs 52.3% of boys; odds ratio = 1.4; 95% CI, 0.9-2.4). Girls were more likely than boys to perpetrate physical violence (52.2% vs 36.1%, respectively; odds ratio = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.2-3.2) but were also more than 5 times as likely to report fear of sustaining serious injury from a partner (16.2% vs 3.1%, respectively; odds ratio = 6.0; 95% CI, 1.4- 26.2). Young age, more intimate partners, and a history of a recent physical fight were independently associated with both dating violence victimization and perpetration. Only 4 of the 127 participants with follow-up interviews (3.1%) used any resources provided. CONCLUSION: Dating violence perpetration and victimization rates for both boys and girls who had at least 1 dating relationship are high in this pediatric emergency department population.

Patterns and knowledge of nonmedical use of stimulants among college students.

OBJECTIVE: To determine patterns and knowledge of nonmedical use of stimulants among a sample of college students. DESIGN: Completion of an anonymous survey consisting of 23 questions designed to explore college student use of medications intended to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. SETTING: A private liberal arts college in New England. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred forty-seven undergraduate students. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Nonmedical use of stimulants. RESULTS: Thirty-one students (9.2%) reported nonmedical stimulant use. Two hundred forty students (71.4%) had peers who used nonprescribed stimulants, 149 (44.3%) knew of peers who made stimulant medication-seeking visits to a physician although they did not believe that they had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and 178 (53.0%) knew of people who sold stimulants to students. Nonprescription users were significantly more knowledgeable about the effects of stimulants than nonusers, and nonusers whose peers used nonprescribed stimulants were more knowledgeable about the effects of stimulants than nonusers whose peers did not use nonprescribed stimulants. After controlling for age, race, and sex, the variables that predicted nonmedical use of stimulants were beliefs that stimulants help individuals study better, stay awake, and lose weight. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of college students in this sample were using nonprescribed stimulants. Among nonusers, those whose peers use nonprescribed stimulants were much more knowledgeable about the effects of stimulant use than those whose peers do not use stimulants. This knowledge may confer an increased risk of future nonmedical stimulant use if students become tempted to seek the beneficial effects experienced by their peers.

Addressing parental smoking in pediatrics and family practice: a national survey of parents.

BACKGROUND: Parental smoking has been associated with increased rates of sudden infant death syndrome, low birth weight, otitis media, asthma, and decreased lung growth. No prior parent surveys have assessed national rates of screening and counseling for parental tobacco use in the context of their child's visit to primary care. OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare rates of pediatrician and family practitioner screening and counseling for parental smoking. Design/Methods. Data were collected by telephone survey of households from July to September 2001. The sample is weighted by race and gender based on 1999 US Census estimates to be representative of the US population. RESULTS: Of 3566 eligible respondents contacted, 3002 (84%) completed surveys; 902 of those were parents who had a child seen by a pediatrician (62%) or family practitioner (38%) in the past year. About half of all parents who visited a pediatrician or family practitioner reported that they had been asked about household member smoking status (52% vs 48%). More parents who visited pediatricians had been asked if they had rules prohibiting smoking in the home than those who visited family practitioners (38% vs 29%). Of 190 (21%) parents who were smokers, fewer than half reported being counseled by either specialty about dangers of second-hand smoke (41% vs 33%) or risks of modeling smoking behavior (31% vs 28%). Similarly, fewer than half of parental smokers received advice to quit (36% vs 45%). CONCLUSION: Overall rates of screening and counseling for parental smoking in pediatric and family practice are low. Despite some differences between specialties, significant opportunities exist to improve tobacco control activities in primary care settings that serve children.

Youth tobacco control research and activities in the United States: the current national landscape.

This paper highlights the increasing level of collaboration, resource sharing, and consensus building in youth tobacco control taking place in the United States. Better knowledge of current research, activities, and collaborations in this area will help in the planning of activities and the rational allocation of funds for tobacco control programs, research, advocacy, and the counter-advertising activities. We defined three general classifications for organizations that had national youth tobacco control activities: Government centers and institutes, government organizations, and bridging organizations. We asked national experts in our own organization and all other included organizations to suggest additional groups for inclusion. After gathering available public information on each organization from Web sites and printed materials, we than solicited additional information by personal communication with individuals in leadership positions for youth tobacco control within each group. We developed a uniform framework to present a clear picture of each group in the areas of institutional conception, general goals, youth tobacco control research, and youth tobacco control activities. The tables provide a helpful reference guide presenting the institutional conception, goals, funding for research, activities, and Web sites for the institutions and organizations discussed here. Many groups have current youth tobacco control priorities in the United States. This synthesis of current research, funding sources, programmatic activities, and collaborations in the United States will be a valuable resource for clinicians, tobacco control advocates, researchers, and program planners.