Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 1 through 20 (22 total).

Stevens V, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Van Oost P. Bullying in flemish schools: An evaluation of anti-bullying intervention in primary and secondary schools. Br J Educ Psychol. 2000;70:195- 210.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Stevens%20V%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=10900778

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, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Class Rules, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Study only reported significant effects.
  • A significant difference was found for the Treatment with Support group vs. the Treatment Without Support group, showing an increase in mean scores in the Treatment with Support group at posttest 1 and no change at posttest 2 and a small decrease in the Treatment without Support group at posttest 1 and 2.
  • Students in the control group did not differ from students in both condition groups.

Pepetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Study only reported significant effects.
  • A significant difference was found for the Treatment with Support group vs. Treatment without Support group (p<0.004), showing an increase at posttest 1 and 2 for the Treatment with Support group and a decrease at posttest 2 for Treatment without Support group.
  • Students in the control group did not differ from students in both condition groups.

Cross D, Shaw T, Hadwen K, et al. Longitudinal impact of the cyber friendly schools program on adolescents’ cyberbullying behavior. Aggress Behav. 2016;42(2):166-180.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26351263

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, Peer-led Curricular Activities/Training, Training (Parent/Family), SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • The intervention was associated with a steeper decline in the log odds of cybervictimization (p=0.028) between pretest and the first posttest. Trends in the log odds between the first posttest and the second posttest were similar (p=0.380). For involved students, the intervention had no impact on the frequency or extent of cyberbullying exposure.

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • The intervention was associated with a steeper decline in the log odds of cyber perpetration (p=0.012) between pretest and the first posttest. Trends in the log odds between the first posttest and the second posttest were similar (p=0.165). For involved students, the intervention had no impact on the frequency or extent of cyberbullying perpetration.

Gradinger P, Yanagida T, Strohmeier D, Spiel C. Prevention of cyberbullying and cyber victimization: Evaluation of the ViSC social competence program. J Sch Violence. 2015;14(1):87-110.

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15388220.2014.963231

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Training

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • Controlling for traditional aggression and victimization (Model 1), cybervictimization did not change between pre- and posttest in the control group (p=0.259), while it significantly decreased in the intervention group (p<0.01). The mean difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p<0.01). With the addition of age as a covariate (Model 2), the results did not differ substantially, only the effect size estimates.
  • Subgroup analyses for girls showed similar results as Model 1 and Model 2 for cybervictimization; comparing the intervention group to the control group showed that the intervention significantly decreased cybervictimization (p<0.01). However, among boys, no statistical change was found in the differences between the control and intervention group

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • Controlling for traditional aggression and victimization as covariates (Model 1), cyberbullying increased in the control group (p<0.01), but decreased in the intervention group (p<0.01). The mean difference between the two groups was statistically significant (p<0.001). With the addition of age as a covariate (Model 2), the results did not differ substantially, only the effect size estimates.
  • Subgroup analyses for girls and boys showed similar results as Model 1 and Model 2 for cyberbullying. Comparing the intervention group to the control group showed that the intervention significantly decreased cyberbullying in both girls (p<0.01) and boys (p<0.001).

Hunt C. The effect of an education program on attitudes and beliefs about bullying and bullying behaviour in junior secondary school students. Child Adolesc Ment Health. 2007;12(1):21-26.

Link: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-04478-004

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Meeting

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • No significant main or interaction effects were found.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Students in the intervention schools reported a significantly greater reduction in bullying others than students in the control groups with regard to bullying others alone (p<0.01).
  • Boys showed greater reductions in their reported bullying others when alone (p<0.01). Significant intervention by sex interactions were also found for bullying others alone (p<0.01). Boys in the intervention group showed significant reduction in their reports of bullying compared to boys in the control schools and compared to girls in both conditions. The effect size of this decrease was large (0.90), but represented a small number of boys (n=25) in a single intervention school. For boys bullying others as part of a group, the main and interaction effects were significant at 0.05.

Kärnä A, Voeten M, Little TD, Alanen E, Poskiparta E, Salmivalli C. Effectiveness of the KiVa antibullying program: Grades 1–3 and 7–9. J Educ Psychol. 2013;105(2):535.

Link: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1007951

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, Peer-led Mentoring/Support Counseling, PARENT/FAMILY, Notification/Information Materials (Online Resources, Information Guide), Presentation/Meeting/Information Session/Event, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Reporting & Response System, Teacher/Staff Training, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • The intervention showed no statistically significant effects on self-reported victimization. \
  • The intervention reduced peer-reported victimization (p<0.001) with an interaction with age of student (p<0.01). Victimization decreased significantly for younger students (at or below the average for students in Grade 8), but did not have an effect for older students (at the average age for Grade 9) (p=0.670).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • The intervention showed no statistically significant effects on self-reported bullying.
  • The intervention effect on peer-reported bullying was not statistically significant (p=0.854). Due to interaction effects, this result only applies to girls in classrooms with an average proportion of boys. At the student level, there was a significant interaction with gender (p<0.01), and the interaction was significantly stronger at the classroom than at the individual level (p=0.008). Through these interactions, bullying was found to be reduced for boys and the effect was stronger when the proportion of boys in the classroom was higher. Bullying was not reduced for girls, but the effect approached statistical significance when a girl was in a classroom with a high proportion of boys (p=0.060).

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.

Allen KP. A bullying intervention system in high school: A two-year school-wide follow-up. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2010;36(3):83-92.

Link: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ916977

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, CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Assembly, Reporting & Response System

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Before the intervention, 15.2% of students reported victimization; after the intervention, 18.3% reported victimization. The difference was not statistically significant (p=0.092).
  • Stratifying the results by gender revealed that males reported more victimization after the intervention (21.0%) than before (15.9%), and the difference approached significance (p=0.065). There was no statistically significant difference in selfreported victimization for females after the intervention as compared to before the intervention (p>0.05).
  • Stratifying the results by grade level indicated a statistically significant increase in reporting of victimization for ninth graders (p=0.009) with 26.0% reporting victimization after as compared to 16.3% before.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Results showed a statistically significant difference between the before- and afterintervention groups (p=0.001) with 7.3% of students reporting that they had bullied others after the intervention compared with 13.6% before.
  • Stratifying the results by gender showed that the difference was statistically significant for both males and females (p<0.05).
  • Stratifying by grade level also showed that the differences were statistically significant for every grade (p<0.05).

Cowie H, Olafsson R. The role of peer support in helping the victims of bullying in a school with high levels of aggression. Sch Psychol Int. 2000;21(1):79-95.

Link: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0143034300211006

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, SCHOOL, Assembly, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • No significant changes were found in the incidence of bullying victimization (been bullied ‘sometimes’ or more this term; been bullied ‘once’ or more in the last 5 days) over the period when the intervention was in place.
  • The students’ average estimate of the number of victims (including self) in their own class was 2.64 (SD=2.13) before the intervention and 2.63 (SD=2.1) after the intervention (not significant).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Comparing post-intervention to preintervention, no significant change was found for the percentage of students reporting “bullied others ‘sometimes’ or more this term,” but there was a significant increase for “bullied others ‘once’ or more in the last 5 days” (p=0.03).
  • The students’ average estimate of the number of bullies (including self) in their own class was 2.39 (SD=2.41) before the intervention and 2.46 (SD=2.23) after the intervention (not significant).

Houlston C, Smith PK. The impact of a peer counselling scheme to address bullying in an all‐girl london secondary school: A short‐term longitudinal study. Br J Educ Psychol. 2009;79(1):69-86.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18435867

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, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, School Rules

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Across all grade levels, there was no significant difference between pretest and posttest in the number of students who reported recent victimization (p=0.54).
  • Examining the results by grade level showed that reported recent victimization remained the same in year 7 (p=1), year 8 (p=0.24), and year 9 (p=0.82).

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Across all grade levels, there was no significant difference between pretest and posttest in the number of students who reported recent bullying behavior (P<0.127).
  • Examining the results by grade level showed that reported recent bullying remained the same in year 7 (p=0.53) and year 9 (p=0.81), but increased significantly in year 8 (p<0.05).

Nixon CL, Werner NE. Reducing adolescents' involvement with relational aggression: Evaluating the effectiveness of the creating A safe school (CASS) intervention. Psychol Sch. 2010;47(6):606-620.

Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/pits.20494

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, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Students were classified into the nonvictimized, average, or high-victimized group based on their pretest relational victimization scores.
  • Results showed that the intervention effect was significant for all three groups of students for both physical and relational victimization. Students in the nonvictimized and average groups reported increasing levels of physical and relational victimization from pretest to posttest, while students in the high-victimized group reported decreases in both forms of victimization over time.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Students were classified into the nonaggressive, average, or high-aggressive based on their pretest relational aggression scores.
  • The intervention effect was significant for all three groups of students for both physical aggression and relational aggression with one exception: reports of physical aggression among students in the high-aggressive group did not change significantly from pretest to posttest. Students in the non-aggressive and average groups reported increases in physical aggression. Results showed that students in the non-aggressive and average groups reported increasing levels of relational aggression from pretest to posttest, whereas students in the high-aggressive group reported decreases in relational aggression over time.
  • Results showed that although males reported higher levels of aggression than females did, both males and females reported slight increases in aggression between pretest and posttest.

Perkins HW, Craig DW, Perkins JM. Using social norms to reduce bullying: A research intervention among adolescents in five middle schools. Group Process Intergroup Relat. 2011:1368430210398004.

Link: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1368430210398004

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): SCHOOL, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Results were reported separately for each school. Bullying victimization decreased for all five schools (rates of change ranged from 9% to 34%). The decrease was statistically significant for three of the five schools. The extent of reductions across school sites was associated with the prevalence and extent of recall of seeing poster messages reporting positive peer norms based on pretest survey data. Rates of change were highest for the school with the highest recall by students after the intervention.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Results were reported separately for each school. Bullying perpetration decreased for all five schools (rates of change ranged from 4% to 35%). The decrease was statistically significantly for three of the five schools. The extent of reductions across school sites was associated with the prevalence and extent of recall of seeing poster messages reporting positive peer norms based on pretest survey data. Rates of change were highest for the school with the highest recall by students after the intervention.

Peterson L, Rigby K. Countering bullying at an Australian secondary school with students as helpers. J Adolesc. 1999;22(4):481-492.

Link: https://ac.els-cdn.com/S0140197199902427/1-s2.0-S0140197199902427-main.pdf?_tid=42708ad0-22ba-4c63-9dc0-ac1fb3308acc&acdnat=1526304288_73659ce9a58e06931208278d9153f069

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, Peer-led Mentoring/Support Counseling, CLASSROOM, Peer-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Assembly, Reporting & Response System, Teacher/Staff Training, School Rules, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Overall, there was not a decline in reported victimization at posttest. However, for students in Grade 7, the mean Victim Score decreased significantly from pretest to posttest (p=0.05). For students in Grade 9, the mean score increased significantly from pretest to posttest (p<0.05). No significant changes in victimization were found for students in Grades 10 and 11.

Salmivalli C. Peer-led intervention campaign against school bullying: Who considered it useful, who benefited? Educ Res. 2001;43(3):263-278.

Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131880110081035

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)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • After the intervention, there was a decline in self-reported bullying victimization (pretest: 9.0%; posttest: 4.2%). A decline was seen in 7th grade girls (pretest: 14.6%; posttest: 2.1%) and in 7th grade boys (pretest: 8.5% and 4.3%). An increase was seen in 8th grade girls (pretest: 4.5%; posttest: 9.1%). No change was observed for 8th grade boys (pretest and posttest: 3.7%). However, statistical significance was not reported.
  • Overall, there was no significant change in peer-reported bullying victimization measured by the average number of students the classmates reported as being bullied by others. However, among 7th grade girls, there was a significant decline in the average number of students classmates reported as bullied by others at posttest (p<0.05). No significant changes were found for 7th grade boys, 8th grade girls, and 8th grade boys. Peer-reported bullying measured by the number of students named as victims before and after the intervention by at least three classmates appeared to show no significant change before and after the intervention; statistical significance was not reported.

Pepetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • The total mean score of observed physical, verbal, and indirect bullying and attacks on property showed no significant difference before and after the intervention.
  • Subgroup analyses showed that girls who were victims before the intervention reported a significant decrease in the mean score. Girls who were non-victims and boys who were victims did not report a significant change. Boys who were nonvictims reported a significant increase.

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.

Del Rey R, Casas JA, Ortega R. Impact of the ConRed program on different cyberbulling roles. Aggress Behav. 2016;42(2):123-135.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26351131

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Training (Parent/Family), CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Training, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Comparing the intervention to the control group of cyber-victims, significant reductions were observed for traditional bullying victimization (p=0.008).
  • For cyberbully/victims, significant reductions were observed in traditional bullying victimization among boys (p=0.007).

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • Comparing the intervention to the control group of cyber-victims, significant reductions were observed for cyberbullying victimization (p=0.03).
  • For cyberbully/victims, significant reductions were observed in cyberbullying victimization among boys (p=0.05).

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • Comparing the intervention to the control group of cyber-aggressors, significant decrease was observed for cyberbullying aggression among boys (p=0.04).
  • Comparing the intervention to the control group of cyberbully/victims, significant decrease was observed for cyberbullying aggression (p=0.007).

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.

Ortega-Ruiz R, Del Rey R, Casas JA. Knowing, building and living together on internet and social networks: The ConRed cyberbullying prevention program. Int J Conf Violence. 2012;6(2):302-312.

Link: http://www.ijcv.org/index.php/ijcv/article/view/250

NPM: 9: Bullying
Intervention Components (click on component to see a list of all articles that use that intervention): PARENT/FAMILY, Training (Parent/Family), CLASSROOM, Adult-led Curricular Activities/Training, SCHOOL, Teacher/Staff Meeting, Media Campaign (Print Materials, Public Address System, Social Media)

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Comparing the intervention group to the control group, the level of traditional bullying victimization decreased significantly (p=0.011). This decrease occurred among both boys and girls (p<0.05), although the decrease was much greater among boys (p<0.01).

Victimization - Cyberbullying

  • Comparing the intervention group to the control group, the level of cyberbullying victimization decreased significantly (p=0.019). Subgroups analyses by sex showed no significant effects.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Comparing the intervention group to the control group, the level of traditional bullying aggression did not change significantly (p=0.882). However, subgroup analyses showed that the decrease was significant in boys (p<0.01), but not girls.

Perpetration/Aggression - Cyberbullying

  • Comparing the intervention group to the control group, the level of cyberbullying aggression decreased significantly (p=0.014). Subgroups analyses by sex showed no significant effects.

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.
    Next Page »

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.