Prevalence of bullying and its impact on self-esteem, anxiety and depression among medical and health sciences university students in RAS Al Khaimah, UAE

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Bullying and peer victimization among medical and health sciences students is a public health issue. This is owing to its detrimental impact and greater risk of psychiatric diseases and psychopathology in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. As a result, a descriptive cross-sectional research study was conducted to investigate the prevalence of bullying and its influence on self-esteem, anxiety, and depression among medical and health sciences university students in RAS Al- Khaimah, United Arab Emirates. Approximately 369 students from MBBS, BDS, B Pharm, and BSN colleges were selected. The instruments included sociodemographic questions, bullying queries, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and the Primary Care Anxiety and Depression Scale. Participants averaged 21.49 ± 2.95. 34.1 % of medical students were bullied. 44.4 % of individuals were called insulting names, making verbal bullying the most common method. The linear regression analysis of bullying data shows that girls (53.2 %) are bullied more than boys (46.8 %). Bullied individuals had a mean score of 43.30 ± 19.74, indicating a higher rate of depression and anxiety. Bullied students had a mean score of 44.62 ± 9.94, indicating lower self-esteem. Significant differences were observed in relation to bullying when considering the variables of the university year, mother's education, and previous experience of bullying (P = 0.002, 0.038, 0.001). It is imperative that universities establish comprehensive protocols to identify instances of such behaviour and provide necessary assistance to victims and their families.

Related collections

Most cited references 61

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Sophie E. Moore, Rosana E Norman, Shuichi Suetani … (2017)

AIM To identify health and psychosocial problems associated with bullying victimization and conduct a meta-analysis summarizing the causal evidence. METHODS A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, ERIC and PsycINFO electronic databases up to 28 February 2015. The study included published longitudinal and cross-sectional articles that examined health and psychosocial consequences of bullying victimization. All meta-analyses were based on quality-effects models. Evidence for causality was assessed using Bradford Hill criteria and the grading system developed by the World Cancer Research Fund. RESULTS Out of 317 articles assessed for eligibility, 165 satisfied the predetermined inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. Statistically significant associations were observed between bullying victimization and a wide range of adverse health and psychosocial problems. The evidence was strongest for causal associations between bullying victimization and mental health problems such as depression, anxiety, poor general health and suicidal ideation and behaviours. Probable causal associations existed between bullying victimization and tobacco and illicit drug use. CONCLUSION Strong evidence exists for a causal relationship between bullying victimization, mental health problems and substance use. Evidence also exists for associations between bullying victimization and other adverse health and psychosocial problems, however, there is insufficient evidence to conclude causality. The strong evidence that bullying victimization is causative of mental illness highlights the need for schools to implement effective interventions to address bullying behaviours.

0 comments Cited 331 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

[Content validity index in scale development].

Jingcheng Shi, Xiankun Mo, Zhenqiu Sun (2012)

Content validity is the degree to which an instrument has an appropriate sample of items for the construct being measured and is an important procedure in scale development. Content validity index (CVI) is the most widely used index in quantitative evaluation. There are 2 kinds of CVI: I-CVI and S-CVI. A method to compute a modified kappa statistic (K*) can be used to adjust I-CVI for chance agreement. S-CVI/UA and S-CVI/Ave are both scale level CVI with different formulas. Researchers recommend that a scale with excellent content validity should be composed of I-CVIs of 0.78 or higher and S-CVI/UA and S-CVI/Ave of 0.8 and 0.9 or higher, respectively. The characteristics and qualifications of the experts, process and main results of content validity evaluation should be reported in scale-related manuscript.

0 comments Cited 130 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Sicily statement on evidence-based practice

Martin Dawes, William Summerskill, Paul Glasziou … (2005)

Background A variety of definitions of evidence-based practice (EBP) exist. However, definitions are in themselves insufficient to explain the underlying processes of EBP and to differentiate between an evidence-based process and evidence-based outcome. There is a need for a clear statement of what Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) means, a description of the skills required to practise in an evidence-based manner and a curriculum that outlines the minimum requirements for training health professionals in EBP. This consensus statement is based on current literature and incorporating the experience of delegates attending the 2003 Conference of Evidence-Based Health Care Teachers and Developers ("Signposting the future of EBHC"). Discussion Evidence-Based Practice has evolved in both scope and definition. Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) requires that decisions about health care are based on the best available, current, valid and relevant evidence. These decisions should be made by those receiving care, informed by the tacit and explicit knowledge of those providing care, within the context of available resources. Health care professionals must be able to gain, assess, apply and integrate new knowledge and have the ability to adapt to changing circumstances throughout their professional life. Curricula to deliver these aptitudes need to be grounded in the five-step model of EBP, and informed by ongoing research. Core assessment tools for each of the steps should continue to be developed, validated, and made freely available. Summary All health care professionals need to understand the principles of EBP, recognise EBP in action, implement evidence-based policies, and have a critical attitude to their own practice and to evidence. Without these skills, professionals and organisations will find it difficult to provide 'best practice'.

0 comments Cited 118 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Fatma M. Ibrahim

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Heliyon

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Heliyon

Title: Heliyon

Publisher: Elsevier

ISSN (Electronic): 2405-8440

Publication date PMC-release: 25 January 2024

Publication date Collection: 15 February 2024

Publication date (Electronic): 25 January 2024

Volume: 10

Issue: 3

Electronic Location Identifier: e25063

Affiliations

[a ]RAK College of Nursing, RAK Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates

[b ]Faculty of Nursing Mansoura University, Egypt

[c ]Medical-Surgical Nursing department, Faculty of Nursing, Alexandria University, Egypt

[d ]College of Nursing, RAK Medical and health Sciences University, Ras Alkhaimah, United Arab Emirates

Author notes

[∗ ]Corresponding author. RAK College of Nursing, RAK Medical and Health Sciences University, Ras Al Khaimah, United Arab Emirates. fatma@ 123456rakmhsu.ac.ae Fatma_magdi@ 123456mans.edu.eg

Article

Publisher Item ID: S2405-8440(24)01094-6 Publisher ID: e25063

DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25063

PMC ID: 10845683

PubMed ID: 38322961

SO-VID: 9b29b14f-3a6b-427c-98d4-fd8d6cd4422c

License:

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

History

Date received : 26 September 2023

Date revision received : 18 January 2024

Date accepted : 19 January 2024

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Smart Citations

Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting

View Citations

See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.