Table 1 General features of 3146 adolescents, Lingcang, Yunnan, China, 2019

From: Impulsivity mediates the association between parenting styles and self-harm in Chinese adolescents

Features N (%) Mean (SE) / Median (IQR)
Demographic
 Sex
  Boys 1437 (45.7)  
  Girls 1709 (54.3)  
 Age (Mean (SE))   13.32 (0.60)
 Ethnicity (%)
  Han 2112 (67.1)  
  Other 1034 (32.9)  
 Grade
  Primary school 1132 (36.0)  
  Junior high school 1069 (34.0)  
  Senior high school 945 (30.0)  
Socioeconomic
 Father’s age (Mean (SE))   42.27 (0.51)
 Mother’s age (Mean (SE))   39.49 (0.50)
Father’s education level
 Elementary school and below 885 (28.1)  
 Junior high school and above 1932 (61.4)  
 Missing or unknowns 329 (10.5)  
Mother’s education level
 Elementary school and below 1077 (34.2)  
 Junior high school and above 1816 (57.7)  
 Missing or Unknowns 253 (8.1)  
Self-harm behavior
 Yes 1480 (47.0)  
 No 1666 (53.0)  
Impulsiveness (Median (IQR))
 Combined score   41.67 (10.84)
 Motor impulsiveness (Dimension 1)   30 (25)
 Assessing impulsive planning (Dimension 2)   47.5 (30)
 Cognitive impulsiveness (Dimension 3)   45 (15)
Degree of Impulsivity
 Low (Combined score < 41.67) 1644 (52.25)  
 High (Combined score > = 41.67) 1445 (45.93)  
 Missing 57 (1.82)  
Parental rearing style (Median (IQR))
 Father
  Rejection   7 (3)
  Over-protection   16 (4)
  Emotional Warmth   15 (8)
 Mother
  Rejection   8 (3)
  Over-protection   17 (5)
  Emotional Warmth   14 (7)