Victimization by traditional bullying and cyberbullying and the combination of these among adolescents in 13 European and Asian countries

Abstract

There has been a lack of studies on bullying in non-western low-income and middle-income countries. This study reported the prevalence of traditional victimization, cybervictimization, and the combination of these, in 13 European and Asian countries, and explored how psychiatric symptoms were associated with victimization. The data for this cross-sectional, school-based study of 21,688 adolescents aged 13–15 were collected from 2011 to 2017. The main outcomes were traditional and cybervictimization obtained from student self-reports. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire was used to assess psychiatric symptoms. Generalized estimating equation and logistic regression models were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). The mean prevalence of any victimization was 28.9%, of traditional victimization only, this was 17.7%, and for cybervictimization only this was 5.1%. Cybervictimization occurred both independently, and in combination with, traditional victimization. The mean prevalence of combined victimization was 6.1%. The mean proportion of those who were cyberbullied only among those who were either cyberbullied only or bullied both traditionally and in cyber was 45.1%. The rates of prevalence varied widely between countries. In the total sample, those who experienced combined victimization, reported the highest internalizing symptoms (girls, OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.22–1.29; boys, OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.25–1.33). The study findings suggest that anti-bullying interventions should include mental health components and target both traditional and cyberbullying. Due to the overlap between these, targeting bullying should primarily focus on how to reduce bullying behavior rather than just focusing on where bullying takes place.

Neuroimaging profiling identifies distinct brain maturational subtypes of youth with mood and anxiety disorders

“…The literature provides robust evidence that risk factors are not diagnosis-specific but are shared across multiple disorders. These include familial predisposition [53][54][55], perinatal exposure to substances and medications [56,57], multiple indicators of lower socioeconomic status (lower parental education, low family income, and neighborhood deprivation) [58,59], family dysfunction, and poor parental practices [60,61], unfavorable view of the school environment [62] and exposure to a range of adverse experiences, including difficulties in forming peer-relationships and bullying [63]. The findings of the current study largely reinforce this pattern with the exception of subtype 1, in which several socioeconomic indicators relating to family income and education and positive parental engagement were better than those in the typically developing group.…”

Neuroimaging profiling identifies distinct brain maturational subtypes of youth with mood and anxiety disorders

“…The literature provides robust evidence that risk factors are not diagnosis-specific but are shared across multiple disorders. These include familial predisposition [51–53], perinatal exposure to substances and medications [54, 55], multiple indicators of lower socioeconomic status (lower parental education, low family income, and neighborhood deprivation) [56, 57], family dysfunction, and poor parental practices [58, 59], unfavorable view of the school environment [60] and exposure to a range of adverse experiences, including difficulties in forming peer-relationships and bullying [61]. The findings of the current study largely reinforce this pattern with the exception of subtype 1, in which several socioeconomic indicators relating to family income and education and positive parental engagement were better than those in the typically developing group.…”

Feeling Unsafe at School Among Adolescents in 13 Asian and European Countries: Occurrence and Associated Factors

“…The current study was conducted using a self-administered survey, which was based on a questionnaire previously used among adolescents in Finland ( 18 , 19 ). The questionnaires were translated into the local language and back-translated for accuracy ( 20 ).…”