Brief report
Table 1 Sample description, N=1730
Total sample N=1730 (100%)
Victims† N=319 (18%)
Non-victims N=1411 (82%)
Odds of victimisation OR (95%CI)
Victimisation‡ Physical
27 (2)
27 (8)
– – – – –
– – – – –
Insult
461 (27)
310 (97)
Threaten
29 (2)
29 (9)
Scream Sexual
369 (21)
273 (86) 50 (16)
62 (4)
Sociodemographics Age (mean, SD)
42 (13)
43 (12)
42 (13)
1.01 (0.99 to 1.01)
Region West
176 (9) 126 (6) 123 (6)
34 (11)
138 (10) 105 (7)
Ref
Northeast Midwest
15 (5) 26 (8)
0.58 (0.30 to 1.12) 1.16 (0.65 to 2.06) 0.92 (0.61 to 1.40)
91 (6)
South
1348 (66) 261 (13)
240 (75)
1062 (75)
Missing
4 (1)
15 (1)
Race/ethnicity White NH
1480 (73) 127 (6) 172 (8) 255 (13) 592 (29) 1196 (59) 246 (12) 332 (16) 637 (31) 790 (39) 275 (14) 904 (44) 284 (14) 399 (20) 177 (9) 270 (13) 269 (13) 949 (47) 816 (40) 541 (37) 139 (7) 596 (29) 330 (16) 428 (21) 916 (45)
265 (83)
1164 (82) 106 (8) 141 (10)
Ref
Other NH Hispanic
27 (8) 27 (8)
0.98 (0.61 to 1.58) 0.84 (0.55 to 1.30)
Missing
Sex
Male
134 (42) 185 (58)
444 (32) 963 (68)
Ref
Female Missing
0.63*** (0.50, 0.82)
0 (0)
4 (0)
Income
<US$80 000
55 (17) 114 (36) 148 (46)
261 (19) 506 (36) 613 (43)
Ref
US$80–150 000 >US$150 000
1.07 (0.75 to 1.52) 1.25 (0.81 to 1.61)
Missing
2 (1)
31 (2)
No children 0
152 (48) 49 (15) 76 (24) 39 (12)
717 (51) 226 (16) 311 (22) 136 (10)
Ref
1 2
1.02 (0.72 to 1.46) 1.15 (0.85 to 1.57) 0.14 (0.91 to 2.01)
3+
Missing
3 (1)
21 (2)
COVID-19 behaviours Change in job status/income No
157 (49) 64 (20) 98 (31)
768 (54) 192 (13) 451 (32) 423 (30) 106 (8) 479 (34) 262 (19) 141 (10) 726 (52)
Ref
Yes
1.63** (1.17, 2.27)
Missing/NA
Change in alcohol use More
102 (32)
Ref
Less
26 (8)
1.02 (0.63 to 1.64) 0.83 (0.61 to 1.13) 0.92 (0.64 to 1.31)
Same
96 (30) 58 (18) 37 (12) 167 (52)
D o not drink
Missing
Work from home (yes)
1.06 (0.75 to 1.53)
*p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001. †Extended Hurt, Insulted, Threated, and Scream summation score >7. ‡Not mutually exclusive. NA, not applicable; NH, non-Hispanic.
participants could have taken the survey but opted not to). Second, all measures were self-reported by participants, thus introducing the potential for systematic under-reporting or over-reporting. However, data were collected via survey (rather than interviews) which has shown to reduce the likelihood of inaccurate reporting to sensitive questions like victimisation. 18
Third, ‘change in victimisation’ remains subjective with a recall component of unknown validity. This measure could easily have been affected by individual and situational effects surrounding the pandemic. However, we did collect change in COVID- 19-related behaviours (job loss, essential worker status, hours at home) during the same time period, of which, none were
Jetelina KK, et al . Inj Prev 2021; 27 :93–97. doi:10.1136/injuryprev-2020-043831
95
Powered by FlippingBook