Cyberbullying Prevention for Adolescents: Iterative Qualitative Methods for Mobile Intervention Design.

Megan L Ranney, Sarah K Pittman, Isabelle Moseley, Kristen E Morgan, Alison Riese, Michele Ybarra, Rebecca Cunningham, Rochelle Rosen
Author Information
  1. Megan L Ranney: Center for Digital Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States. ORCID
  2. Sarah K Pittman: Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, United States. ORCID
  3. Isabelle Moseley: Center for Digital Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States. ORCID
  4. Kristen E Morgan: Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, United States. ORCID
  5. Alison Riese: Center for Digital Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States. ORCID
  6. Michele Ybarra: Center for Innovative Public Health Research, San Clemente, CA, United States. ORCID
  7. Rebecca Cunningham: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, United States. ORCID
  8. Rochelle Rosen: Center for Digital Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, United States. ORCID

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cybervictimization among adolescents is associated with multiple negative mental health consequences. Although pediatricians often screen for cyberbullying, validated and acceptable programs to reduce the frequency and impact of adolescent cybervictimization are lacking.
OBJECTIVE: This study uses agile qualitative methods to refine and evaluate the acceptability of a mixed-modality intervention, initiated within the context of usual pediatric care, for adolescents with a history of cyberharassment and cyberbullying victimization.
METHODS: Three groups of adolescents were successively recruited from an urban primary care clinic to participate in three consecutive iterations (1, 2, and 3) of the program, which consisted of a brief in-clinic intervention followed by 8 weeks of daily, automated SMS text messaging. After 2 weeks of messaging, iteration 1 (I1) participants completed semistructured interviews regarding intervention experiences. Participant feedback was evaluated via framework matrix analysis to guide changes to the program for iteration 2 (I2). Feedback from 2-week interviews of I2 participants was similarly used to improve the program before initiating iteration 3 (I3). Participants in all 3 iterations completed the interviews after completing the program (8 weeks). Daily response rates assessed participant engagement, and satisfaction questionnaires assessed acceptability.
RESULTS: A total of 19 adolescents (aged 13-17 years) reporting past-year cybervictimization were enrolled: 7 in I1, 4 in I2, and 8 in I3. Demographic variables included the following: a mean age of 15 (SD 1.5) years; 58% (11/19) female, 42% (8/19) male, 63% (12/19) Hispanic, 37% (7/19) non-Hispanic, 79% (15/19) people of color, and 21% (4/19) White. A total of 73% (14/19) self-identified as having a low socioeconomic status, and 37% (7/19) self-identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. The average past 12-month cybervictimization score at baseline was 8.2 (SD 6.58; range 2-26). Participant feedback was used to iteratively refine intervention content and design. For example, participants in I1 recommended that the scope of the intervention be expanded to include web-based conflicts and drama, rather than narrowly focusing on cyberbullying prevention. On the basis of this feedback, the I2 content was shifted toward more general de-escalation skills and bystander empowerment. Overall, 88.34% (940/1064) of the daily queries sent to participants across all 3 iterations received a reply. Participant satisfaction improved considerably with each iteration; 0% (0/7) of I1 participants rated the overall quality of Intervention to Prevent Adolescent Cybervictimization with Text message as excellent, compared to 50% (2/4) of I2 participants and 86% (6/7) of I3 participants. Engagement also improved between the first and third iterations, with participants replying to 59.9% (235/392) of messages in I1, compared to 79.9% (358/488) of messages in I3.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the value of structured participant feedback gathered in an agile intervention refinement methodology for the development of a technology-based intervention targeting adolescents.

Keywords

References

  1. Pediatrics. 2011 Apr;127(4):800-4 [PMID: 21444588]
  2. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2019 Mar 1;26(3):198-210 [PMID: 30590757]
  3. Cad Saude Publica. 2015 Mar;31(3):463-75 [PMID: 25859714]
  4. Soc Sci Med. 2013 Nov;97:41-8 [PMID: 24161087]
  5. Eval Program Plann. 1982;5(3):233-7 [PMID: 10259963]
  6. J Sch Health. 2015 Sep;85(9):611-20 [PMID: 26201758]
  7. J Child Adolesc Trauma. 2018 Feb 19;11(1):39-48 [PMID: 32318136]
  8. Am J Public Health. 2003 Apr;93(4):635-41 [PMID: 12660210]
  9. Prev Med. 2008 Jul;47(1):3-16 [PMID: 18403003]
  10. Proc Annu Hawaii Int Conf Syst Sci. 2015 Jan;2015:3247-3255 [PMID: 26640419]
  11. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117 [PMID: 24047204]
  12. J Interpers Violence. 2014 Jan 14;29(12):2218-2238 [PMID: 24424252]
  13. Psychol Bull. 2014 Jul;140(4):1073-137 [PMID: 24512111]
  14. J Sch Health. 2015 Aug;85(8):544-51 [PMID: 26149310]
  15. Transl Behav Med. 2016 Jun;6(2):317-28 [PMID: 27357001]
  16. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Jul 16;10:67 [PMID: 20637084]
  17. Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2015 Feb 26;11(Suppl 1 M4):58-76 [PMID: 25834628]
  18. Nurse Res. 2011;18(2):52-62 [PMID: 21319484]
  19. Pediatrics. 2012 Jun;129(6):1083-90 [PMID: 22614776]
  20. J Adolesc. 2014 Aug;37(6):807-15 [PMID: 25086457]
  21. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw. 2014 Sep;17(9):591-602 [PMID: 25007383]
  22. J Adolesc Health. 2016 Oct;59(4):401-10 [PMID: 27267141]
  23. Cultur Divers Ethnic Minor Psychol. 2010 Oct;16(4):573-80 [PMID: 21058823]
  24. J Med Internet Res. 2012 Jan 24;14(1):e13 [PMID: 22278284]
  25. Ann Gen Psychiatry. 2015 Nov 03;14:37 [PMID: 26535048]
  26. Psychol Med. 2009 May;39(5):705-12 [PMID: 18812006]
  27. Int J Epidemiol. 2019 Oct 1;48(5):1415-1415k [PMID: 31257425]
  28. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;245:1292 [PMID: 29295377]
  29. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2013;42(6):820-33 [PMID: 23659182]
  30. J Adolesc Health. 2014 Jul;55(1):33-40 [PMID: 24559973]

Grants

  1. R21 HD088739/NICHD NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0participantsinterventionadolescentsI1I2cyberbullyingiterations23program8iterationfeedbackI3healthcybervictimization1weeksinterviewsParticipantCybervictimizationadolescentstudyagilequalitativerefineacceptabilitycaredailymessagingcompletedusedassessedparticipantsatisfactiontotalyearsSD37%7/19self-identifiedcontentdesignimprovedInterventioncompared9%messagesmobileBACKGROUND:amongassociatedmultiplenegativementalconsequencesAlthoughpediatriciansoftenscreenvalidatedacceptableprogramsreducefrequencyimpactlackingOBJECTIVE:usesmethodsevaluatemixed-modalityinitiatedwithincontextusualpediatrichistorycyberharassmentvictimizationMETHODS:Threegroupssuccessivelyrecruitedurbanprimaryclinicparticipatethreeconsecutiveconsistedbriefin-clinicfollowedautomatedSMStextsemistructuredregardingexperiencesevaluatedviaframeworkmatrixanalysisguidechangesFeedback2-weeksimilarlyimproveinitiatingParticipantscompletingDailyresponseratesengagementquestionnairesRESULTS:19aged13-17reportingpast-yearenrolled:74Demographicvariablesincludedfollowing:meanage15558%11/19female42%8/19male63%12/19Hispanicnon-Hispanic79%15/19peoplecolor21%4/19White73%14/19lowsocioeconomicstatuslesbiangaybisexualaveragepast12-monthscorebaseline658range2-26iterativelyexamplerecommendedscopeexpandedincludeweb-basedconflictsdramarathernarrowlyfocusingpreventionbasisshiftedtowardgeneralde-escalationskillsbystanderempowermentOverall8834%940/1064queriessentacrossreceivedreplyconsiderably0%0/7ratedoverallqualityPreventAdolescentTextmessageexcellent50%2/486%6/7Engagementalsofirstthirdreplying59235/39279358/488CONCLUSIONS:showsvaluestructuredgatheredrefinementmethodologydevelopmenttechnology-basedtargetingCyberbullyingPreventionAdolescents:IterativeQualitativeMethodsMobileDesigndigitalphoneuser-centered

Similar Articles

Cited By