Established Evidence Results

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, PARENT/FAMILY, Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Enforcement of School Rules, SCHOOL, Assembly, Reporting & Response System, Bullying Committee, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules, Identification and Monitoring of/Increased Supervision in Targeted Areas, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Radio, TV)

Intervention Description: To examine the effectiveness of a widely disseminated bullying prevention program.

Intervention Results: Regression analyses controlling for baseline prevalence and school characteristics showed no overall effect on student victimization. However, when stratified by ethnicity/race, reports of relational and physical victimization decreased by 28% (RR = .72, 95% CI: .53-.98) and 37% (RR = .63, 95% CI: .42-.97), respectively, among white students relative to those in comparison schools. No similar effect was found for students of other races/ethnicities; there were no differences by gender or by grade. Students in intervention schools were more likely to perceive other students as actively intervening in bullying incidents, and 6th graders were more likely to feel sorry and want to help victims.

Conclusion: The program had some mixed positive effects varying by gender, ethnicity/race, and grade but no overall effect. Schools implementing the program, especially with a heterogeneous student body, should monitor outcomes and pay particular attention to the impact of culture, race and family influences on student behavior. Future studies of large-scale bullying prevention programs in the community must be rigorously evaluated to ensure they are effective.

Study Design: QE: pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group

Setting: US

Population of Focus: Not specified

Data Source: Not specified

Sample Size: Intervention (n=4959) Relational Victimization: Pretest (n=4607); Posttest (n=4480) Physical Victimization: Pretest (n=4531); Posttest (n=4419) Control (n=1559) Relational Victimization: Pretest (n=1408); Posttest (n=1456) Physical Victimization: Pretest (n=1373); Posttest (n=1448)

Age Range: NR

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, PARENT/FAMILY, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Enforcement of School Rules, SCHOOL, Bullying Committee, Assembly, Reporting & Response System, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules, Identification and Monitoring of/Increased Supervision in Targeted Areas, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Radio, TV)

Intervention Description: This intervention study examined the prevalence of bullying in an urban/suburban middle school and the impact of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP).

Intervention Results: Statistically significant findings were found for 7th grade female students who received 1 year of the OBPP on reports of prevalence of bullying (p = .022) and exclusion by peers (p = .009). In contrast, variability in statistical findings was obtained for 8th grade females and no statistical findings were found for males. Following 1 year of the OBPP, teachers reported statistically significant improvements in their capacity to identify bullying (p = .016), talk to students who bully (p = .024), and talk with students who are bullied (p = .051). Other substantial percentile changes were also noted.

Conclusion: Findings suggest a significant positive impact of the OBPP on 7th grade females and teachers. Other grade and gender findings were inconsistent with previous literature. Recommendations for further research are provided along with implications for school health prevention programming.

Study Design: QE: time-lagged age-equivalent control group

Setting: US

Population of Focus: Not specified

Data Source: Not specified

Sample Size: Intervention (n=112); Control (n=158)

Age Range: NR

Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): Identification and Monitoring of/Increased Supervision in Targeted Areas,

Intervention Description: The intervention in the study was the Developmental Milestones Program, which aimed to support developmental monitoring and referral for low-income children receiving WIC services in eastern Missouri. The program was implemented in two phases and included the use of LTSAE checklists for milestone monitoring during biannual recertification visits, along with other structural/organizational tools designed to support effective time use and promote fidelity. The program was designed in partnership with WIC staff and built on strategies already employed in WIC nutrition programs, such as parent education, child monitoring, and health referrals. The program was intended to be easy and time-efficient to use, given that the main objective of WIC staff-parent interactions was to provide nutritional supports,.

Intervention Results: In both phases, all surveyed staff (n = 46) agreed the program was easy to use. Most (≥ 80%) agreed that checklists fit easily into clinic workflow and required ≤ 5 min to complete. Staff (≥ 55%) indicated using checklists with ≥ 75% of their clients. 92% or more reported referring one or more children with potential developmental concerns. According to 80% of staff, parents indicated checklists helped them learn about development and planned to share them with healthcare providers. During the second phase, 18 of 20 staff surveyed indicated the program helped them learn when to refer children and how to support parents, and 19 felt the program promoted healthy development. Focus groups supported survey findings, and all clinics planned to sustain the program.

Conclusion: The study did not explicitly mention statistically significant findings in the provided excerpts. However, the study did assess various implementation outcomes, such as program adoption, fidelity, acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility, through the use of surveys and focus group discussions with WIC staff members. The results of these assessments were presented in the study, but without specific mention of statistical significance. For detailed statistical significance, it would be necessary to refer to the complete study.

Study Design: The study utilized a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Quantitative data were collected through surveys completed by WIC nutrition staff, while qualitative data were obtained through focus group discussions with the same staff members. This mixed-methods design allowed for a comprehensive assessment of the program's implementation outcomes, including fidelity, acceptability, and impact on staff and families,.

Setting: The study was conducted in 20 demographically diverse WIC clinics in eastern Missouri. These settings provided the opportunity to implement and assess the developmental monitoring and referral program in real-world, community-based environments, reflecting the diverse population served by WIC.

Population of Focus: The target audience for the study includes professionals and stakeholders involved in the care and support of low-income children, particularly those receiving services through the WIC program. This may encompass healthcare providers, WIC staff, public health professionals, policymakers, and researchers interested in early childhood development, nutrition programs, and interventions for low-income populations.

Sample Size: The sample size for the study included 160 participants in Phase I and 367 participants in Phase II. Additionally, the survey responses were collected from 26 participants in Phase I and 20 participants in Phase II. These sample sizes were used to assess the implementation outcomes and participant demographics in the study.

Age Range: The developmental monitoring and referral program targeted children ages 2 months to 4 years. This age range aligns with the critical period for early identification of developmental delays and disabilities, allowing for timely intervention and support for the children and their families.