What Works for Whom in School-Based Anti-bullying Interventions? An Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis.

Maud Hensums, Brechtje de Mooij, Steven C Kuijper, BIRC: the anti-Bullying Interventions Research Consortium, Minne Fekkes, Geertjan Overbeek
Author Information
  1. Maud Hensums: Department of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. M.Hensums@uva.nl. ORCID
  2. Brechtje de Mooij: Department of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ORCID
  3. Steven C Kuijper: Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Medical Centers, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  4. Minne Fekkes: Department of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ORCID
  5. Geertjan Overbeek: Department of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ORCID

Abstract

The prevalence of bullying worldwide is high (UNESCO, 2018). Over the past decades, many anti-bullying interventions have been developed to remediate this problem. However, we lack insight into for whom these interventions work and what individual intervention components drive the total intervention effects. We conducted a large-scale individual Participant data (IPD) meta-analysis using data from 39,793 children and adolescents aged five to 20 years (M = 12.58, SD = 2.34) who had participated in quasi-experimental or randomized controlled trials of school-based anti-bullying interventions (i.e., 10 studies testing nine interventions). Multilevel logistic regression analyses showed that anti-bullying interventions significantly reduced self-reported victimization (d =  - 0.14) and bullying perpetration (d =  - 0.07). Anti-bullying interventions more strongly reduced bullying perpetration in younger participants (i.e., under age 12) and victimization for youth who were more heavily victimized before the intervention. We did not find evidence to show that the inclusion of specific intervention components was related to higher overall intervention effects, except for an iatrogenic effect of non-punitive disciplinary methods-which was strongest for girls. Exploratory analyses suggested that school assemblies and playground supervision may have harmful effects for some, increasing bullying perpetration in youth who already bullied frequently at baseline. In conclusion, school-based anti-bullying interventions are generally effective and work especially well for younger children and youth who are most heavily victimized. Further tailoring of interventions may be necessary to more effectively meet the needs and strengths of specific subgroups of children and adolescents.

Keywords

References

  1. J Youth Adolesc. 2010 Jan;39(1):1-11 [PMID: 20091212]
  2. Sch Psychol Q. 2016 Mar;31(1):8-27 [PMID: 25866866]
  3. Int J Public Health. 2009 Sep;54 Suppl 2:216-24 [PMID: 19623475]
  4. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health. 2015 Aug 23;9:42 [PMID: 26300969]
  5. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2006 Apr;11(2):80-9 [PMID: 16635187]
  6. Crim Behav Ment Health. 2011 Apr;21(2):80-9 [PMID: 21370293]
  7. Aggress Behav. 2012 May-Jun;38(3):222-38 [PMID: 22331629]
  8. Psychol Health Med. 2017 Mar;22(sup1):240-253 [PMID: 28114811]
  9. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2020 Jun;23(2):250-264 [PMID: 31919684]
  10. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2018 Feb;59(2):129-139 [PMID: 28892126]
  11. Ment Health Serv Res. 2005 Mar;7(1):5-20 [PMID: 15832690]
  12. Clin Psychol Rev. 2021 Apr;85:101979 [PMID: 33610956]
  13. J Sch Psychol. 2021 Apr;85:37-56 [PMID: 33715780]
  14. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Jan;44(1):30-9 [PMID: 23253647]
  15. Pediatrics. 2006 Jul;118(1):130-8 [PMID: 16818558]
  16. Prev Sci. 2018 Aug;19(6):822-832 [PMID: 29707731]
  17. Pediatrics. 2015 Feb;135(2):e496-509 [PMID: 25560447]
  18. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2016 Jan 19;113(3):566-71 [PMID: 26729884]
  19. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2018 Jan;13(1):101-122 [PMID: 29232535]
  20. Am J Public Health. 2014 Jun;104(6):e48-59 [PMID: 24825231]
  21. BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919 [PMID: 27733354]
  22. J Clin Child Adolesc Psychol. 2004 Mar;33(1):196-201 [PMID: 15028553]
  23. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019 Jan 30;16(3): [PMID: 30704025]
  24. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2019 Feb;58(2):167-179 [PMID: 30738544]
  25. EClinicalMedicine. 2021 Oct 11;41:101142 [PMID: 34693231]
  26. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2016 Apr;84(4):334-44 [PMID: 26795935]
  27. Child Abuse Negl. 2010 Apr;34(4):244-52 [PMID: 20304490]
  28. Sch Psychol Q. 2014 Sep;29(3):306-319 [PMID: 25089333]
  29. JAMA Pediatr. 2014 May;168(5):435-42 [PMID: 24615300]
  30. Psychol Bull. 1995 Jan;117(1):167-78 [PMID: 7870860]
  31. J Couns Psychol. 2015 Oct;62(4):732-40 [PMID: 26376177]
  32. Campbell Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 05;17(2):e1143 [PMID: 37131921]
  33. BMJ. 2010 Feb 05;340:c221 [PMID: 20139215]

Grants

  1. 016.vici.185.063/Dutch Research Council
  2. "Effectief werken in de Jeugdsector/ZonMw
  3. " Project 729300011/ZonMw

MeSH Term

Child
Adolescent
Female
Humans
Bullying
Schools
Crime Victims

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0interventionsinterventionbullyinganti-bullyingeffectsdatachildrenperpetrationAnti-bullyingyouthworkindividualcomponentsparticipantIPDmeta-analysisadolescentsschool-basedieanalysesreducedvictimizationd =  - 0youngerheavilyvictimizedspecificmayIndividualprevalenceworldwidehighUNESCO2018pastdecadesmanydevelopedremediateproblemHoweverlackinsightdrivetotalconductedlarge-scaleusing39793agedfive20 yearsM = 1258SD = 234participatedquasi-experimentalrandomizedcontrolledtrials10studiestestingnineMultilevellogisticregressionshowedsignificantlyself-reported1407stronglyparticipantsage12findevidenceshowinclusionrelatedhigheroverallexceptiatrogeniceffectnon-punitivedisciplinarymethods-whichstrongestgirlsExploratorysuggestedschoolassembliesplaygroundsupervisionharmfulincreasingalreadybulliedfrequentlybaselineconclusiongenerallyeffectiveespeciallywelltailoringnecessaryeffectivelymeetneedsstrengthssubgroupsWorksSchool-BasedInterventions?ParticipantDataMeta-analysisBullyingEffectivenessVictimization

Similar Articles

Cited By (6)