Skip Navigation

Strengthening the evidence for maternal and child health programs

Find Established Evidence


Displaying records 21 through 33 (33 total).

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).

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).

Richards A, Rivers I, Akhurst J. A positive psychology approach to tackling bullying in secondary schools: A comparative evaluation. Educational and Child Psychology. 2008;25(2):72-81.

Link: http://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-06944-007

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

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • No significant change was found for any of the bullying items between pretest and posttest in the control school.
  • All results reported henceforth pertain to the intervention school. There was a significant reduction in reports of bullying with 70.6% of students saying they had not been bullied in the past two weeks at pretest and 79.2% at posttest (p≤0.05).
  • No significant difference was found for the item related to physical victimization (‘I’ve been hit or kicked’).
  • With regard to items related to verbal victimization, no difference was found for ‘I’ve been called names about my ethnicity or color.’ A significant decrease from 22.5% at pretest to 14.4% at posttest was found for ‘I’ve been called other names’ (p≤0.05).
  • No significant differences were found for items related to relational victimization (‘Rumors have been spread about me,’ ‘No one speaks to me,’ and ‘I’ve seen graffiti about me’).
  • No significant differences were found for items related to damage to property (‘I’ve had my belongings taken’ and ‘My homework has been taken or destroyed’).

Wölfer R, Schultze-Krumbholz A, Zagorscak P, Jäkel A, Göbel K, Scheithauer H. Prevention 2.0: Targeting cyberbullying@ school. Prev Sci. 2014;15(6):879-887.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24122481

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

Intervention Results:

In comparison to the total sample, cyberbullying increased in the control group, remained stable in the shortintervention group, and decreased in the long-intervention group. Post hoc comparisons indicated that the control group differed on cyberbullying compared to the long-intervention group, while both intervention groups did not differ significantly from each other.

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.

Domino M. Measuring the impact of an alternative approach to school bullying. J Sch Health. 2013;83(6):430-437.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23586888

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

Intervention Results:

Victimization - Traditional Bullying

  • Results for the fall 2009 intervention revealed significant differences in mean victim sum scores (p<0.001) at posttest between the intervention (decrease from 2.48 to 1.26) group and control group (increase from 1.41 to 2.25) over the same time period.
  • Results for the spring 2010 intervention showed that controls receiving the intervention reported reduced victimization with a decrease in mean victim sum scores from 2.25 to 1.12 (p<0.001).
  • Results remained significant after controlling for sex. Results by sex mimicked the results shown by the groups as a whole. For the intervention group, victimization was significantly reduced among males and females, with mean sum scores decreasing from 2.55 to 1.35 among males from pretest to posttest, and 2.41 to 1.18 among girls. Among controls, an initial increase in victim sum scores was seen during the fall 2009 intervention, followed by significant reductions after participation in the intervention.

Perpetration/Aggression - Traditional Bullying

  • Results for the fall 2009 intervention revealed significant difference in mean bully sum scores (p<0.001) at posttest between the intervention group (decrease from 1.15 to 0.68) and control group (increase from 1.39 to 1.98) over the same time period.
  • Results for the spring 2010 intervention showed that controls receiving the intervention reported a significant decrease in mean bully sum scores from 1.98 to 1.04 in bullying (p<0.001).
  • Results remained significant after controlling for sex. Results by sex mimicked the results shown by the groups as a whole. For the intervention group, significant bullying reductions were reported among males and females, with mean sum scores decreasing among males from 1.53 to 0.88 from pretest to posttest, and 0.84 to 0.52 among girls. Among controls, an initial increase in bully sum scores was seen during the fall 2009 intervention, followed by significant reductions after participation in the intervention.

Nese RN, Horner RH, Dickey CR, Stiller B, Tomlanovich A. Decreasing bullying behaviors in middle school: Expect respect. Sch Psychol Q. 2014;29(3):272.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24820010

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:

Each school demonstrated reduction in rates of physical and verbal aggression after introduction of the intervention. Prior to the intervention, Schools 1, 2, and 3 averaged 4, 2.44, and 2.37 incidents of aggression respectively per 20-min observation. In the intervention phases, Schools 1, 2, and 3 averaged 0.89, 0.88, and 0.64 incidents respectively per 20-min observation. Taken together, Schools 1, 2, and 3 experienced a 78%, 64%, and 73% reduction in level of aggression respectively. However, statistical significance was not reported.

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.

Boulton, M. J., & Boulton, L. (2017). Modifying self-blame, self-esteem, and disclosure through a cooperative cross-age teaching intervention for bullying among adolescents. Violence and victims, 32(4), 609-626.

Link: https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-15-00075

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, Peer-led Curricular Activities/Training

Intervention Results:

CATS led to a significant improvement on all 3 dependent variables and changes in self-blame, and separately changes in self-esteem, mediated the positive effect of the intervention on help-seeking.
« Previous 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.