Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 7 (7 total).

Swaim RC, Kelly K. Efficacy of a randomized trial of a community and school-based anti-violence media intervention among small-town middle school youth. Prev Sci. 2008;9(3):202- 214.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18607726

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): CLASSROOM, Peer-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Assembly, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media), Distribution of Promotional Items, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Training, Event, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Radio, TV), Distribution of Promotional Items

Intervention Results:

  • Students in the intervention group reported a significantly higher rate of decline in verbal victimization compared to control students. The difference was only significant among males.
  • For physical victimization, the decline in the intervention group compared to the control group was in the expected direction but did not reach statistical significance (p=0.069). This near significant difference was accounted for by males.

Bauer NS, Lozano P, Rivara FP. The effectiveness of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program in public middle schools: A controlled trial. J Adolesc Health. 2007;40(3):266-274.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17321428

NPM: 9: Bullying
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 Results:

  • Overall, there was no difference in relational (RR=0.96, 95% CI: 0.86-1.08) or physical (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.87-1.17) victimization comparing the intervention schools to the control schools over the two-year period.
  • When stratified by race/ethnicity, white students in intervention schools were 27.5% less likely to report relational (RR=0.72, 95% CI: 0.53-0.98) and 36.6% less likely to report physical victimization (RR=0.63, 95% CI: 0.42-0.97) compared to white students in control schools. No statistically significant results were found for students of other race/ethnicity groups.
  • No significant effects were found when results were stratified by gender or grade.

Menesini E, Nocentini A, Palladino BE. Empowering students against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of an Italian peer-led model. Int J Conf Violence. 2012;6(2):313-320.

Link: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233944925_Empowering_Students_Against_Bullying_andCyberbullying_Evaluation_of_an_Italian_Peer-led_Model

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Peer-led Mentoring/Support Counseling, CLASSROOM, Presentation/meeting/information Session (Classroom), SCHOOL, Assembly, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media), POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Presentation/Meeting with Community Officials (School Boards, Administrators, Police), Event

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Study 1: No significant main or interaction effects were found for victimization.
  • Study 2: For victimization, there was a significant interaction of time and group (p<0.01), showing a decrease over time in the intervention group as compared to the control group. Among all students in the intervention group, the intervention effect was found for both peer educators as well as other students in the intervention classes.

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • Study 1: No significant main or interaction effects were found for cybervictimization.
  • Study 2: For cybervictimization, there was a significant interaction of time and group (p<0.05), showing a decrease over time in the intervention group as compared to the control group. Among all students in the intervention group, the intervention effect was found for both peer educators as well as other students in the intervention classes.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Study 1 No significant main or interaction effects were found for bullying.
  • Study 2: For bullying, there was a significant interaction of time and group (p<0.05), showing a decrease over time in the intervention group as compared to the control group. Among all students in the intervention group, the intervention effect was found for both peer educators as well as other students in the intervention classes.

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • Study 1: Cyberbullying decreased significantly from pretest to posttest for the peer educator group only (not the awareness group or the control group) (p<0.05), and in particular for male peer educators (p<0.05).
  • Study 2: No significant intervention effect was found for cyberbullying.

Palladino BE, Nocentini A, Menesini E. Evidence‐based intervention against bullying and cyberbullying: Evaluation of the NoTrap! program in two independent trials. Aggress Behav. 2016;42(2):194-206.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26879897

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Peer-led Mentoring/Support Counseling, CLASSROOM, Presentation/meeting/information Session (Classroom), Peer-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Assembly, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media), POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Presentation/Meeting with Community Officials (School Boards, Administrators, Police), Event

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Trial 1: Compared to the control group, the intervention group showed a significant decrease in victimization (p<0.001). The reduction was stable 6 months after the intervention ended.
  • Trial 2: Compared to the control group, the intervention, the intervention group showed a significant decrease in victimization (p<0.001). No significant interaction effect was found for time*group*gender (p=0.59).

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • Trial 1: Compared to the control group, the intervention group showed a significant decrease in cybervictimization (p<0.001). The reduction was stable 6 months after the intervention ended.
  • Trial 2: Compared to the control group, the intervention group showed a significant decrease in cybervictimization (p<0.001). No significant interaction effect was found for time*group*gender (p=0.62).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Trial 1: Compared to the control group, the intervention group showed a significant decrease in bullying (p<0.001). The reduction was stable 6 months after the intervention ended.
  • Trial 2: Compared to the control group, the intervention, the intervention group showed a significant decrease in bullying (p<0.001). A significant interaction effect was found for gender. A significant decrease was found for both boys (p<0.001) and girls (p<0.001) in the intervention group, while the boys in the control group showed a significant increase (p<0.004) and the girls in the control group (p=0.12) did not change significantly.

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • Trial 1: Compared to the control group, the intervention group showed a significant decrease in cyberbullying (p<0.001). The reduction was stable 6 months after the intervention ended.
  • Trial 2: Compared to the control group, the intervention, the intervention group showed a significant decrease in cyberbullying (p=0.02). No significant interaction effect was found for time*group*gender (p=0.18).

Palladino BE, Nocentini A, Menesini E. Online and offline peer led models against bullying and cyberbullying. Psicothema. 2012;24(4):634-639.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23079363

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Peer-led Mentoring/Support Counseling, CLASSROOM, Presentation/meeting/information Session (Classroom), SCHOOL, Assembly, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media), POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Presentation/Meeting with Community Officials (School Boards, Administrators, Police), Event

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • In comparison to the control group, the intervention group decreased significantly in victimization (p<0.01).
  • Among all students in the intervention group, the intervention effect was found for both peer educators as well as other students in the intervention classes.

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • In comparison to the control group, the intervention group decreased significantly in cybervictimization (p<0.05).
  • Among all students in the intervention group, the intervention effect was found for both peer educators as well as other students in the intervention classes.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • In comparison to the control group, the intervention group decreased significantly in bullying (p<0.05).
  • Among all students in the intervention group, the intervention effect was found for both peer educators as well as other students in the intervention classes.

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • Comparing the intervention group to the control group, no significant effect was found for cyberbullying.

Bowllan NM. Implementation and evaluation of a comprehensive, school‐wide bullying prevention program in an urban/suburban middle school. J Sch Health. 2011;81(4):167-173.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21392008

NPM: 9: Bullying
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 Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • The study only reported significant findings and findings with percentile changes of 15% or more.
  • With regard to composite victimization, comparing 7th grade females postintervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 31.1% decrease in reports of being bullied (p=0.022). Comparing 8th grade females post-intervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 25.0% increase in reports of the frequency of being bullied (p=0.038).
  • With regard to physical victimization, comparing 8th grade females postintervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 20.0% increase in reports of being physically bullied (p=0.035).
  • With regard to verbal victimization, comparing 8th grade females post-intervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 35.0% decrease in reports of being indirectly verbally bullied (p=0.035).
  • With regard to relational victimization, comparing 7th grade females postintervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 34.4% decrease in reports of being excluded (p=0.009).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • The study only reported significant findings and findings with percentile changes of 15% or more.
  • With regard to composite victimization, comparing 8th grade females postintervention to those pre-intervention, there was a 35.6% increase in reports of taking part in bullying others (p=0.003). For 7th grade males, there was a 21.8% increase in reports of taking part in bullying others; however, the difference did not reach statistical significance.

Schroeder BA, Messina A, Schroeder D, et al. The implementation of a statewide bullying prevention program: Preliminary findings from the field and the importance of coalitions. Health Promot Pract. 2012;13(4):489-495.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21422258

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): YOUTH, Adult-led Support/Counseling/Remediation, PARENT/FAMILY, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Enforcement of School Rules, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), SCHOOL, Bullying Committee, Reporting & Response System, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules, POPULATION-BASED SYSTEMS, COMMUNITY, Presentation/Meeting with Community Officials (School Boards, Administrators, Police), Media Campaign (Print Materials, Radio, TV)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Schools that agreed to district-wide implementation became part of HALT!, while districts that chose to implement at the building level became part of PA CARES. Results were reported separately for the different sites.
  • Results from 999 high school students in 3 schools in Cohort 1 after 2 years of program implementation of HALT! showed a statistically significant decrease in reports of being bullied.
  • Results from 6048 high school students in 7 schools after 1 year of program implementation of PA CARES showed a significant decrease in reports of being bullied.

Pepetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Schools that agreed to district-wide implementation became part of HALT!, while districts that chose to implement at the building level became part of PA CARES. Results were reported separately for the different sites.
  • Results from 999 high school students in 3 schools in Cohort 1 after 2 years of program implementation of HALT! showed a statistically significant decrease in reports of bullying others. Results from 7446 high school students in 13 schools in Cohort 2 after 1 year of program implementation of HALT! showed statistically significant fewer reports of bullying others and fewer reports of students who could join in bullying. Results from 12972 middle school students in 15 schools in Cohort 2 after 1 year of program implementation of HALT! showed statistically significant fewer reports of students who could join in bullying.
  • Results from 9899 middle school students in 13 schools after 1 year of program implementation of PA CARES showed a slight but non-significant decrease in the reports of students bullying others. Results from 6048 high school students in 7 schools showed a significant decrease in reports of bullying others.
   

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number U02MC31613, MCH Advanced Education Policy, $3.5 M. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.