A Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of the Effectiveness of School‐Based Anti‐Bullying Programs

Gaffney, Hannah; Farrington, David P.

doi:10.1002/9781118482650.ch69

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evaluation of the research evidence base of C/B prevention and intervention programs and strategies demonstrates varying degrees of success (Gaffney, Farrington et al, 2021; Gaffney, Ttofi et al, 2019, 2021b). While strategies and programs have been found to reduce the incidence of bullying and victimisation in school settings overall (Gaffney, Farrington et al, 2019), it is only certain elements and/or approaches that have actually made the difference: some contexts, some ages (primary vs. secondary), one gender more than the other, or individuals and/or groups (Cook et al, 2010; Evans et al, 2014; Jiminez-Barbero et al, 2016; Merrell et al, 2008; Polanin et al, 2012; Rigby & Johnson, 2016; Ttofi & Farrington, 2011; Yeager et al, 2015).…”

Section: The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using participatory design to inform cyber/bullying prevention and intervention practices: Evidence-Informed insights and strategies

Spears

Taddeo

2021

Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bullying and cyberbullying are global phenomena negatively impacting on children’s and young people’s (CYP’s) mental health and wellbeing and affecting their school social experiences and learning outcomes. Many interventions and prevention approaches have been employed over the decades, most impacting differentially, with some success in certain contexts and situations but not universally, suggesting the need for more contextualised, nuanced approaches at the whole school, community, individual and peer-group levels. The recognition of the importance of student and teacher voice in recent years has heralded interest in co-design practices to deliver more context-relevant interventions and prevention strategies. This article considers how participatory design and co-design practices can form part of the prevention and intervention repertoire for schools, teachers, counsellors and psychologists in their quest to understand and reduce cyberbullying and/or bullying (C/B) behaviours. Two case-study exemplars are provided that reflect the importance of context and student-centred relevancy to inform practice.

show abstract

Section: The Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using participatory design to inform cyber/bullying prevention and intervention practices: Evidence-Informed insights and strategies

Spears

Taddeo

2021

Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an attempt to prevent/reduce these adverse effects on victims, anti-bullying interventions have been implemented in schools worldwide to reduce the frequency of bullying among students (Smith, 2019). These interventions have had some, if limited, positive impact on the prevalence of bullies and victims in school classes (Gaffney & Farrington, 2021). It has therefore been assumed that reducing the level of victimisation in schools will result in a general increase in the health, social and psychological well-being of everyone.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Healthy Context Paradox at a National/Country-Level: Is Victimisation associated with Worse Adjustment in Countries where the Average Level of Victimisation is Lower?

Agyekum-Hene,

Smith,

Turunen

et al. 2024

Int Journal of Bullying Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research has highlighted the healthy context paradox (HCP), namely that the association between peer victimisation and psychological and social adjustment worsens in social contexts with lower average level of victimisation. Previous research has examined this phenomenon in relation to classroom- or school-level victimisation. We tested whether the HCP is applicable on a much wider scale, at national level. Besides country-level victimisation, we explored whether country-level economic inequality and social welfare protection moderate the victimisation-adjustment link. We used data from the HBSC 2013/2014 survey related to peer victimisation and five measures of health and wellbeing of 11-, 13- and 15-year-old boys and girls from 40 countries (N = 198,646) in Europe and North America, complemented with information on economic inequality (Gini index, available for 33 countries) and social protection (decommodification index, available for 25 countries). We confirmed an expected within-country correlation between higher levels of victimisation and poorer health and wellbeing for each measure and across countries; however this association had significant between-country variability. For country-level victimisation, there was evidence of a significant HCP effect for the measures of peer support and life satisfaction – but not for feeling low, health, and liking school.

show abstract

“…Upon further examination, we found that this review did not appear to meet many mandatory MECCIR standards. Five versions of this review were published outside of the Campbell Collaboration [ 16 – 20 ]. Such wide dissemination of results has the potential to influence educational policy and practice, so it is important to understand the review’s methods and conclusions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Campbell Collaboration’s systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not meet mandatory methodological standards

Littell

Gorman

2022

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Many published reviews do not meet the widely accepted PRISMA standards for systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Campbell Collaboration and Cochrane reviews are expected to meet even more rigorous standards, but their adherence to these standards is uneven. For example, a newly updated Campbell systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not appear to meet many of the Campbell Collaboration’s mandatory methodological standards. Issues In this commentary, we document methodological problems in the Campbell Collaboration's new school-based anti-bullying interventions review, including (1) unexplained deviations from the protocol; (2) inadequate documentation of search strategies; (3) inconsistent reports on the number of included studies; (4) undocumented risk of bias ratings; (5) assessments of selective outcome reporting bias that are not transparent, not replicable, and appear to systematically underestimate risk of bias; (6) unreliable assessments of risk of publication bias; (7) use of a composite scale that conflates distinct risks of bias; and (8) failure to consider issues related to the strength of the evidence and risks of bias in interpreting results and drawing conclusions. Readers who are unaware of these problems may place more confidence in this review than is warranted. Campbell Collaboration editors declined to publish our comments and declined to issue a public statement of concern about this review. Conclusions Systematic reviews are expected to use transparent methods and follow relevant methodological standards. Readers should be concerned when these expectations are not met, because transparency and rigor enhance the trustworthiness of results and conclusions. In the tradition of Donald T. Campbell, there is need for more public debate about the methods and conclusions of systematic reviews, and greater clarity regarding applications of (and adherence to) published standards for systematic reviews.

show abstract

A Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses of the Effectiveness of School‐Based Anti‐Bullying Programs

Cited by 3 publications

References 70 publications

Using participatory design to inform cyber/bullying prevention and intervention practices: Evidence-Informed insights and strategies

Using participatory design to inform cyber/bullying prevention and intervention practices: Evidence-Informed insights and strategies

The Healthy Context Paradox at a National/Country-Level: Is Victimisation associated with Worse Adjustment in Countries where the Average Level of Victimisation is Lower?

The Campbell Collaboration’s systematic review of school-based anti-bullying interventions does not meet mandatory methodological standards

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About