4.7 Article

Police contact and health among urban adolescents: The role of perceived injustice

期刊

SOCIAL SCIENCE & MEDICINE
卷 238, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112487

关键词

Social determinants of health; Police; Urban; Adolescents; Stress; Race; Procedural justice police contact and health among urban adolescents

资金

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health [R01HD36916, R01HD39135, R01HD40421]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research evaluates whether personal and vicarious police contact are related to self and caregiver-reports of teen health and to what extent these associations vary by perceptions of procedural injustice. We analyzed longitudinal health data collected from adolescents in the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (N = 3435), alongside teen self-reports of whether they were stopped by the police or experienced vicarious police contact, and if so, their perceptions of procedural injustice in these encounters. We estimated regression models with lagged dependent variables and a propensity score weighting approach. Our analysis yielded four important results. First, participants who reported personal or vicarious police stops had worse self-reported health in adolescence than their counterparts with no contact. Second, both types of police contact were unrelated to caregiver reports of adolescent health and inconsistently related to somatic symptoms. Third, procedural injustice exacerbated the relationship between both personal and vicarious contact and diminished self-reported health. Finally, the associations between police contact and self-reported health were stronger among black and Hispanic adolescents than white ones. Our results highlight personal and vicarious police contact, particularly instances viewed as procedurally unjust, as commonly experienced adverse health events among urban adolescents.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据