• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Population Dynamics Research CentersPopulation Dynamics Research Centers

  • About
  • Research Highlights
  • Publications
  • Tools & Training
    • Support for Writing Research Briefs
    • Introduction to Using Twitter for Social Science
    • Expanding the Reach of Your Research: Best Practices for Communicating with Policymakers and the Media
    • New Tools and Best Practices in Communicating Research Results to Media and Policy Audiences
    • Communicating With Media Audiences
    • Communicating With Policy Audiences
  • Special Topics
    • Coronavirus
    • Maternal Health
  • News
Home > Archives for smeskin

smeskin

Using Technology to Prevent Dating Violence and Improve College Safety

April 5, 2017

As many as one in every five teenagers and college students will experience some type of violence in intimate relationships or be the victim of stalking. Campuses across the United States are struggling with ways to support students and to stem potential abuse.

At a recent symposium at Johns Hopkins University, researchers and policy advocates described how technology can be both a tool to perpetrate and to prevent sexual violence. They explored research on the prevalence of sexual violence on college campuses and examined evidence on technology-based prevention strategies, including smartphone apps to help avert dating violence and connect victims with assistance. The symposium was titled “Dating Violence and Safety on College Campuses: Using Technology to Change the Climate.”

View the video of the Symposium here.

Presenters at the Oct. 6, 2016 event included:

  • Michele Decker, associate professor, Department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and co-chair of the university’s Sexual Violence Advisory Committee (slides: PDF).
  • Nancy Glass, professor, Johns Hopkins School of Nursing, and associate director of the university’s Center for Global Health (slides: PDF).
  • Kiersten Stewart, director of public policy and advocacy for Futures Without Violence, formerly the Family Violence Prevention Fund.

Michele Decker emphasized that intimate partner violence is not concentrated within marriage as thought in the past but “affects youth, at times disproportionately.” She discussed the prevalence of sexual and dating violence, reporting findings from the Centers for Disease Control’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. For more than two-thirds of victims, their first experience of rape, intimate partner violence, or stalking occurs before age 25; nearly one-half experienced this violence between ages 18 and 24, the traditional years of college attendance. Perpetrators tend to be known to the college student victims as partners, classmates, or acquaintances.

A synthesis of findings from surveys on 27 U.S. college campuses in 2015 suggests that 12 percent of undergraduates experienced nonconsensual sexual contact (penetration or touching) involving physical force or incapacitation (due to drugs, alcohol, being asleep, or passed out) since enrolling, Decker reported. Overall, more than 20 percent of female and transgender or gender nonconforming undergraduate students reported being victimized. Although the reported prevalence is lower, nonconsensual sexual contact also occurs among graduate students.

Decker described the types of sexual violence experienced through technology. Called “digital dating abuse,” these behavior patterns reflect an effort to control, pressure, or threaten a dating partner using a cell phone or the internet—such as looking at a partner’s private information online without permission, tracking a partner’s movements, and monitoring with whom a partner talks and with whom they are friends. Researchers show that digital dating violence and “real life violence” frequently co-occur. Experiencing any kind of sexual violence or digital dating abuse increases the risk of mental health problems and other forms of dysfunction, noted Decker.

A variety of technological innovations are aimed at campus safety. Phone apps can act as a “panic button” to call campus police or allow a person feeling threatened to invite members in their social network to track their journey in real time as they travel. Other apps connect users anonymously to crisis hotlines, medical care, and support services. In Decker’s view, “technology holds the promise as a tool for prevention,” empowering survivors by maximizing their confidentiality in seeking support, and enabling access to accountability and safety in real time. Decker concluded that there is significant unmet need for prevention and connection to care on college campuses for both undergraduate and graduate students.

Nancy Glass described research on the “myPlan” app, an interactive decisionmaking tool for college-age survivors of dating violence and their concerned friends. Developed at Johns Hopkins, the tool is a safety decision aid that can be accessed online or via a phone; the public version is available for free download via iTunes or Android. The app is designed to help users learn about healthy and unhealthy relationships, assess risk within their relationship, and receive personalized information and resources based on their priorities and the level of danger they face. The app helps users develop a personalized action plan for safety.

Glass reported that research shows that young women are less likely to access formal services and more likely to disclose the abuse to a friend. The myPlan app is designed to give victim’s friends the knowledge and confidence to provide effective support. Research also shows that decisionmaking related to intimate partner violence is dynamic rather than linear, she said. The app aims to enable users to weigh potential harms and benefits at various points in time as their situation changes.

Through the College Safety Study, Glass is part of a team currently assessing the effectiveness of the app for decisionmaking and safety planning among female students and their friends, with funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. They are also testing and evaluating dissemination methods.

Kiersten Stewart emphasized that college campus are legally obligated under Title IX to prevent and respond to gender-based sexual violence. She underscored the importance of reaching out to various stakeholders to promote the myPlan app. She noted that it complements rather than replaces counseling and advocacy from campus staff, health practitioners, or local dating violence programs. To garner support from policymakers, developers of projects like the myPlan app need to be able to quantify costs, impact, the timeframe in which the impact is expected, and the target population who benefits, according to Stewart. She also urged that future campus climate surveys be designed with a consideration of how the results could be used to design interventions. Stewart described a recently released Netflix documentary on high school sexual violence and social media, Audrie and Daisy, which is raising the visibility of this issue as it affects a younger population.

The symposium was sponsored by the Hopkins Population Center and the Population Reference Bureau’s Center for Public Information on Population Research with funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Changing Demographics Reshape Rural America

April 1, 2017

Trends shaping rural life in America include unprecedented population declines, a growing Hispanic population, a disproportionate share of military veterans, and a sharp increase in “deaths of despair”—related to suicide, alcohol abuse, and drug overdose—among rural residents with low education levels.

At “Small Towns/Big Changes: The Shifting Demographics of Rural America,” a briefing for members of Congress and their staff sponsored by the Population Association of America, scholars explored the implications of current demographic trends and recent socioeconomic change for the nation’s rural areas.

The presenters at the April 3, 2017 event included:

Dr. Robert A. Moffitt, Johns Hopkins University, moderator

Panelists:

Dr. Daniel Lichter, Cornell University (slides, PDF)

Dr. Jennifer Van Hook, Pennsylvania State University (slides, PDF)

Dr. Meredith A. Kleykamp, University of Maryland (slides, PDF)

Dr. Wesley James, University of Memphis (slides, PDF)

Daniel Lichter explored the three “D’s” reshaping U.S. nonmetropolitan counties in the United States—depopulation, deaths, and diversity. Beginning around 2010, U.S. rural counties as a whole began experiencing an overall population loss for the first time; previously, out-migration was offset by births. Now about one-third of U.S. counties have more deaths than births, reflecting both out-migration of young adults and older adults aging in place. Hispanics made up more than one-half of the people added to the U.S. rural population through both migration and births between 2000 and 2010.

These trends have implications for policy, he noted. Populations that have large shares of people who are old, poor, or minorities have different needs for medical care, legal assistance, and social services. However, rural areas characterized by chronic out-migration are unlikely to attract highly educated professionals to provide those services because these areas lack urban amenities, potential marriage partners, good schools, and high-quality health care.

View video

View presentation

Jennifer Van Hook emphasized that nine out of 10 rural areas are more diverse now than they were 20 years ago. She described how jobs in construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and meat packing have brought immigrants to new places in rural America in recent decades. Immigrants and the industries that have attracted them have helped revitalize dying towns such as Worthington, Minn., which lost population in the 1990s but now is 40 percent Hispanic and growing, she explained. Births to immigrants help fuel this growth. Long-term residents have received immigrants with a mixture of appreciation and apprehension. Social and economic integration takes time and is more likely to occur for the second generation, she suggested.

View video

View presentation

Meredith A. Kleykamp reported that U.S. military veterans are disproportionately represented among rural residents: Roughly 18 percent of the total U.S. population lives in rural areas compared with 24 percent of all veterans. Additionally, 36 percent of veterans who use the Veteran’s Administration (VA) for health care live in rural areas, and distances to VA facilities pose challenges. Lack of broadband internet in many rural areas limits the promise of telemedicine as a solution. She noted that veterans who have completed their military service could be an important resource for rural communities, bringing educational skills and leadership experiences. However, information is lacking on what leads rural-origin veterans to return to rural areas or settle elsewhere after they complete their military service.

View video

View presentation

Wesley James examined rural and urban death rates, which were the same between 1940 and 1985 but began inching apart after 1985. Urban mortality rates have been dropping faster than rural rates since 1985, resulting in a widening gap. The U.S. rural population currently experiences 100 more deaths per 100,000 people each year than the urban population. He reported that if rural death rates had equaled urban death rates between 1986 and 2012, there would have been 700,000 fewer deaths in the United States. For the first time in 20 years, life expectancy at birth in the United States declined slightly, according to data for 2014 and 2015 from the National Center for Health Statistics.

James focused on recent research on “deaths of despair” due to suicide, alcohol abuse, and drug overdoses—notably, the opioid epidemic—since 2000. These deaths are most prevalent in highly rural parts of the nation, including parts of Appalachia and the Southwest. “Accumulated disadvantage” related to low education levels, unemployment, poor mental and physical health, and isolation puts rural residents at higher risk of premature death. Adults with no more than a high school degree have suffered most: Deaths of despair among this group more than doubled since 2000. By contrast, rates for those with a four-year college degree remained constant during the period.

View video

View presentation

Co-sponsors of the event included the Population Reference Bureau, American Sociological Association, American Statistical Association, Association of Population Centers, Association of Public Data Users, Consortium of Social Science Associations, Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, and the Rural Sociological Society.

Having Friends, Socializing as Important to Good Health as Diet, Exercise

February 12, 2017

The more social ties people have at an early age, the better their health in young adulthood and old age, according to a 2016 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

These findings are based on data from four nationally representative, federally funded longitudinal studies that follow the same people over many years.1

Such studies measure changes in an individual’s health over time, allowing researchers to identify cause and effect, according to Kathleen Mullan Harris, a sociology professor at University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, faculty fellow at the Carolina Population Center, and a member of the research team.

Their study was one of the first to definitively link social connections with specific health measures such as abdominal obesity, inflammation, and high blood pressure—all of which increase the risk of disease, including heart disease, stroke, and cancer.

PRB spoke with Mullan Harris about their research. A partial transcript follows; an audio recording is available above.

PRB: These results are surprising. Can you help us understand how our friendships and social ties affect our health?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Sure. We were interested in how social connections affect health. It’s been known in the literature for some time that social connections were associated with longevity, in other words, lower death rate and a longer life expectancy, but mainly this research has been done for just older aging populations.

We have the ability to try to understand the underlying biological mechanism that explains this relationship.

For example, when we experience some threat or a challenge, our brain sets off a distress signal to other bodily systems that get us ready for that challenge. Certain hormones are released to respond to that threat. It gets us ready, our muscles receive additional energy. We release epinephrine as well as cortisol and that’s a normal healthy response to stress.

PRB: So what’s an unhealthy response to stress?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: The problem occurs when people experience stress on a regular basis; you might think of living in a dangerous neighborhood where you’re always vigilant for hearing gunshots or something like that. In those situations, our body responds by keeping alert to this threat, and it never returns to its equilibrium where cortisol levels will go back down to normal. When we’re experiencing  the chronic daily stress in this way, our body has a physiological response that is bad for our health. It means that we have an increase in inflammation. Our heartbeat is always elevated. We have high blood pressure. We have cortisol circulating in our bloodstream all the time, which adds fat to the middle parts of our body.

That’s a long way of saying that what we suspect is going along with the social connections in terms of affecting health is that it acts as a buffer to these types of chronic daily stressors. It provides a sort of social and emotional support used for the kinds of things that we face every day.

We looked at the relationship between the social connections that people with these biological outcomes have in their lives and find that indeed, the more social connections that individuals have, the lower these health risks or the lower inflammation, obesity, and hypertension.

PRB: I think from your findings, you say that age makes a difference, that our relationships impact our health in somewhat different ways at different ages. What did you observe there?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: That’s really the other new part of our research. As I mentioned this relationship has mainly been examined in aging populations and what we did in our research was put together sources of data from four different studies that allowed us to examine the relationship between social connection and health risk across the life course, so beginning in adolescence into middle adulthood and then in aging or older adults.

What we found is that social connections are very important in reducing the health risk in young adulthood and later life, so among aging individuals. [But] in middle adulthood, we found that it wasn’t so much the amount of social connections that people have, but it was really the quality of those connections—what those connections actually give you in terms of social support or strain.

PRB: So for middle-age adults, quality matters more than quantity?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Yes, that was really an interesting finding, that the social connections, the actual number of different domains in which individuals were embedded wasn’t as important for middle-age adults. But what was important was the quality of their connections. What we think is going on here is that middle-age adults are already highly embedded in many different social networks. They have people that they work with, their neighbors, they have children. They likely have living parents, and they’re involved in networks with their children’s friends’ parents, and so they had many different connections, but what those connections actually give them in the sense of social support or strain, is what we found made a difference with their health.

The extent that those connections provided social support, provided someone that they could talk to about their problems, or who was always there for them improved their health, lowered these health risks that we were measuring. But if those connections actually created strain in their lives by making demands on them or criticizing them, letting them down, then that increased the poor health outcomes that we were examining. We find it very interesting that early in life or later in life [friendship] is more voluntary—where you go out and get involved with social life, and you meet friends and you join organizations. In the middle of life it’s less voluntary. You’re naturally in many of these different networks, and so it’s really what those networks give you that seems to matter for your health in middle adulthood.

PRB: Toxic colleagues at work or difficult family relationships take a toll during middle age?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Exactly.

PRB: What does social isolation look like? Are introverts and shy people less healthy for example?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Yes that’s a good question. So we measured social integration, or what I’ve been referring to as social connections. What’s important to understand is that we examined integration across multiple domains of social life so in the adolescent period, for example, we examined the extent to which adolescents were connected to their families, to their friends, within religious institutions, and in the school in terms of activities. We measure social connections across many different domains and then we do the same in middle adulthood and older adulthood, just changing the context to what’s developmentally appropriate for that stage of adulthood.

Social isolation then is being isolated across multiple domains. It’s not just having friends, but it also means that you’re not really actively engaged with your family or within the community or school, so that’s what isolation looks like. I think the question about being shy or introverted, I mean, of course that makes sense, but because we capture this in multiple domains, we think that social isolation is capturing more than just somebody who’s shy or introverted. Even very introverted individuals are actively engaged with their family, perhaps belong to some community organization, or go to church. We’re less concerned that we are really picking up that personality aspect.

PRB: What about for young people? For many of them, being social involves smart phones and social media. Do those connections count too or is that something different?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Good question. Well, we did not include that, and probably because we had questions about Internet access, about social media. The survey in which the young people were interviewed started in 1995 for adolescents. Then we’ve been following them over time. Social media wasn’t such an incredibly a huge part of our social life back then as was today. That might be important probably for more the friendship connections than some of the other connections.

PRB: And for the older people, I wondered if health doesn’t also affect our ability to socialize? For some elderly people, getting out of the house is difficult. Do we know that it’s not health affecting social connections rather than the other way around?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Right, absolutely. Something we always worry about in our social research. Fortunately, what we were able to do here is control for health, which means we take advantage of the fact that we know what the individual’s health is before we measure their social integration. That allows us to actually say, okay given what your health is now, we’re going to see how many social connections you have and then see what the impact of those social connections are three years from now. We’re able to actually look at the change in health.

PRB: So you’re following people over time and it’s the individual change that you’re looking at?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Right. It’s the individual change. We can’t do that for all of the data sets but we can do it for some of the data sets and that gives us confidence. In fact, I think for one of the findings, we try to provide a way to interpret the importance of social connections and we found that the effect of social connections was as important as being engaged in physical activity for reducing health risk in adolescence for example.

PRB: Wow. Are there takeaway messages that you would give parents or school administrators based on this work, particularly related to adolescents?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Yes. Two things that are really important to me. One of the reasons that I am interested in bringing together the sort of biological data with the social data to look at relationships like this is to bring the importance of social factors in health to the medical community. I think that our results show that when doctors, for example, are conducting an annual checkup either with young people or old people, they should be asking them what their social life is like, how often do they go out during the week, who are their best friends. That’s one implication that we hope we’ll carry over into the medical field.

Then for the young people, we were surprised actually to find social connections to be so important early in the life course. It seems that schools could think about adolescents who are particularly isolated and reach out to them, maybe create certain structures or activities that might pull in some of the adolescents who aren’t as engaged in the social life of the school.

For parents for sure, it seems like this is an important educational finding that parents should be sort of monitoring their adolescent’s social life and making sure that they’re getting out and being around other people.

PRB: That their social life has an impact on their health so it’s just as important as eating well or getting enough sleep or … ?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Or exercise, exactly.

PRB: You mentioned that you used four different separate surveys for this study. What was unique about each of them?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: These studies are all nationally representative so that means that our findings relate to the U.S. population, and they were all longitudinal as you mentioned. That means that they follow the same people over time which is very important.

What was unique about them is they cover different stages of the life course so we use the Add Health study [National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health] which is a study of adolescents who are being followed into early adulthood, young adulthood. Then, we use another study called MIDUS [Midlife in the United States] which is a study of middle adulthood and then we have two national studies of aging adults NSHAP [National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project] and HRS [Health and Retirement Study] which study adults above age 50. Basically, what we did is we harmonized all of our measures of the social integration as well as our measures of social support and social strain. We harmonize all of the biological mechanisms. We ran the same analysis in all four data sets. That allowed us to put together our findings across the life course or the age of adults and observe how they were the same and different.

PRB: You could take a young person and look at them over time and see what happened with obesity or inflammation based on the kind of social life they had.

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Right. We could say for this individual who comes from this area of the country and is this race or ethnicity and gender, here’s what social connections means for their health in adolescence, in middle adulthood, and then in older adulthood.

PRB: Do you hope that these findings will provide evidence for policy change or program interventions?

Kathleen Mullan Harris: I hope so. One of the nice things about identifying social factors is that you can usually change them. I mean some are more expensive than others but they’re usually changeable. [Findings related to social factors] usually  result in a number of different implications for policy.

PRB: So these findings might be the basis for heading off the obesity epidemic or future diabetes …

Kathleen Mullan Harris: Yes. I mean I think where our policies would help in terms of the obesity epidemic is that we can curtail or put a dent in that relationship between obesity and disease. I think there’s been some movement. I think from what I gather, we’ve got the plateauing of obesity so in other words, obesity isn’t rising anymore. It’s kind of flat, so I imagine that there will be continued policies to work on lowering obesity. For our cohort, the main thing that we’re trying to follow is that the time from health risk, which is obesity, to disease. We would like to extend that time by identifying what factors matter most and then in turn, the policy implications—[policy changes or new health recommendations] that could act on those factors. Even if you are overweight or obese but you exercise, that’s healthy. That’s going to lower your blood pressure. I don’t know how much of an impact it will have on lowering inflammation but it is still healthier than being inactive.

Reference

The four, federally funded longitudinal studies are the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health); Midlife in the United States (MIDUS); National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project (NSHAP); and the Health and Retirement Study (HRS).

Adding It Up: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in Reproductive Health Services

December 10, 2014

Over the past two decades, striking progress has been achieved in making pregnancy and childbirth safer in developing countries. However, a report issued by the Guttmacher Institute and the United Nations Population Fund finds a staggering lack of basic sexual and reproductive health services in developing countries. The report, Adding It Up: The Costs and Benefits of Investing in Reproductive Health Services 2014, documents current levels of unmet need for modern contraception and basic maternal and newborn care and the negative consequences of that. The report calculates the cost of providing these services and the dramatic reductions in maternal and newborn deaths and in mother-to-child transmission of HIV that would result.

In this recording of a webinar, Jacqueline E. Darroch, co-author of the report and senior fellow at the Guttmacher Institute; and Sneha Barot, senior public policy associate at the Guttmacher Institute, presented findings from the report and their policy and programmatic implications. Their discussion was followed by 10 minutes of questions and answers.

This webinar is provided by PRB’s Center for Public Information on Population Research, with funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Migration and the Environment

September 5, 2014

In this webinar, Jason Bremner, associate vice president of International Programs at PRB, and Lori M. Hunter, professor of sociology at the University of Colorado Boulder, discussed the relationship between migration and the environment and highlighted innovative research taking place at population research centers. Their discussion was followed by a Q&A session.

This webinar is provided by PRB’s Center for Public Information on Population Research, with funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Global Family Planning Goals and Measurement: Where Are We Now?

June 27, 2014

In this webinar, Scott Radloff, senior scientist at the Bill & Melinda Gates Institute for Population and Reproductive Health, and Emily Sonneveldt, director for the Center of M&E and Advocacy at the Futures Institute, describe how mobile technology is being used by local data collectors in Africa and Asia to generate rapid-turnaround data, and how this information is being used in tandem with modeling that leverages service statistics to measure progress across 70 countries in meeting global family planning goals. Susan Rich, vice president of International Programs at the Population Reference Bureau, moderated the webinar. Their presentations were followed by 15 minutes of Q&A.

The Hopkins Population Center and PRB’s Center for Public Information on Population Research co-hosted this webinar with funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

  • Page 1
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Go to Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

This website was prepared by the Center for Public Information on Population Research (CPIPR) at the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) for the Population Dynamics Research Centers. This website is made possible by the generous support of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).

Explore the Research Centers

  • Bowling Green State University
  • Brown University
  • Columbia University
  • Duke University
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • Ohio State University
  • Pennsylvania State University
  • Population Reference Bureau
  • University of California, Berkeley
  • University of California, Los Angeles
  • University of Colorado, Boulder
  • University of Maryland
  • University of Michigan
  • University of Minnesota
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • University of Texas at Austin
  • University of Washington
  • University of Wisconsin-Madison

Search All Centers

Conduct a custom search across the Population Dynamics Research Centers. Up to 100 results.

Footer

  • Contact
  • Centers
  • Twitter

News and Publications

Receive our monthly email listing newly published articles and new grants at each of the Centers.

This website was prepared by the Center for Public Information on Population Research (CPIPR) at the Population Reference Bureau (PRB) for the Population Dynamics Research Centers. This website is made possible by the generous support of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).