Post on 08-Jan-2017
transcript
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-0614; originally published online September 16, 2013; 2013;132;720Pediatrics
Gianluca Gini and Tiziana PozzoliBullied Children and Psychosomatic Problems: A Meta-analysis
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/132/4/720.full.html
located on the World Wide Web at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is
of Pediatrics. All rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.Boulevard, Elk Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy published, and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Pointpublication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly
at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2013-0614; originally published online September 16, 2013; 2013;132;720Pediatrics
Gianluca Gini and Tiziana PozzoliBullied Children and Psychosomatic Problems: A Meta-analysis
ServicesUpdated Information &
mlhttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/132/4/720.full.htincluding high resolution figures, can be found at:
References
ml#ref-list-1http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/132/4/720.full.htat:This article cites 48 articles, 12 of which can be accessed free
Rs)3Peer Reviews (PPost-Publication
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/eletters/132/4/720
R has been posted to this article: 3One P
Permissions & Licensing
tmlhttp://pediatrics.aappublications.org/site/misc/Permissions.xhtables) or in its entirety can be found online at: Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures,
Reprints http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml
Information about ordering reprints can be found online:
rights reserved. Print ISSN: 0031-4005. Online ISSN: 1098-4275.Grove Village, Illinois, 60007. Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Pediatrics. All and trademarked by the American Academy of Pediatrics, 141 Northwest Point Boulevard, Elkpublication, it has been published continuously since 1948. PEDIATRICS is owned, published, PEDIATRICS is the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. A monthly
at Hospital La Paz on October 16, 2013pediatrics.aappublications.orgDownloaded from
Bullied Children and Psychosomatic Problems:A Meta-analysis
abstractBACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: A previous meta-analysis showed thatbeing bullied during childhood is related to psychosomatic problems,but many other studies have been published since then, including somelongitudinal studies. We performed a new meta-analysis to quantify theassociation between peer victimization and psychosomatic complaints inthe school-aged population.
METHODS: We searched online databases up to April 2012, and bibliog-raphies of retrieved studies and of narrative reviews, for studies thatexamined the association between being bullied and psychosomaticcomplaints in children and adolescents. The original search identified119 nonduplicated studies, of which 30 satisfied the prestated inclusioncriteria.
RESULTS: Two separate random effects meta-analyses were performedon 6 longitudinal studies (odds ratio = 2.39, 95% confidence interval,1.76 to 3.24) and 24 cross-sectional studies (odds ratio = 2.17, 95%confidence interval, 1.91 to 2.46), respectively. Results showed thatbullied children and adolescents have a significantly higher risk forpsychosomatic problems than non-bullied agemates. In the cross-sectional studies, the magnitude of effect size significantly decreasedwith the increase of the proportion of female participants in the studysample. No other moderators were statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: The association between being bullied and psychoso-matic problems was confirmed. Given that school bullying is a wide-spread phenomenon in many countries around the world, the presentresults indicate that bullying should be considered a significant inter-national public health problem. Pediatrics 2013;132:720–729
AUTHORS: Gianluca Gini, PhD, and Tiziana Pozzoli, PhD
Department of Developmental and Social Psychology, Universityof Padua, Padua, Italy
KEY WORDSbullying, peer victimization, psychosomatic problems, health,meta-analysis
ABBREVIATIONSCI—confidence intervalNfs—fail-safe NOR—odds ratioSES—socioeconomic status
Dr Gini contributed to protocol design, literature search, dataextraction, statistical analysis, and writing the manuscript; DrPozzoli contributed to literature search, data extraction, andwriting the manuscript; and both authors approved the finalmanuscript as submitted.
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2013-0614
doi:10.1542/peds.2013-0614
Accepted for publication Jul 10, 2013
Address correspondence to Gianluca Gini, PhD, Department ofDevelopmental and Social Psychology, via Venezia 8, 35131,Padova, Italy. E-mail: gianluca.gini@unipd.it
PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275).
Copyright © 2013 by the American Academy of Pediatrics
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: The authors have indicated they haveno financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.
FUNDING: No external funding.
POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicatedthey have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose.
720 GINI and POZZOLI
Being bullied during childhood or ad-olescence is a risk factor for a person’swell-being and adjustment. Studieshave shown that peer victimization isrelated mainly to internalizing prob-lems, including low self-esteem, highanxiety, and depression,1–4 and it alsois linked to suicidal ideation and at-tempt.5,6 Moreover, it is increasinglyrecognized that bullied students canalso be affected by poor physical healthand show a variety of symptoms, suchas headache, backache, abdominal pain,skin problems, sleeping problems, bed-wetting, or dizziness.7–11 Given that insuch circumstances psychosocial pro-cesses seem to act as a key factor neg-atively affecting children’s health, thesesymptoms are often called psychoso-matic problems.7–10
To date, the only meta-analysis12 spe-cifically conducted on this issue waspublished in 2009. That meta-analysissynthesized the results of 11 studiesthat have analyzed the association be-tween being victimized by peers atschool and the prevalence of symp-toms among children and adolescentsbetween 7 years and 16 years of age.Bullied students were found to havea significantly higher risk for psycho-somatic problems than were the con-trols, that is, the agemates who werenot involved in bullying (pooled oddsratio [OR] = 2.00, 95% confidence in-terval [CI], 1.70 to 2.35). Although im-portant, those results were limited bythe small number of studies includedin the meta-analysis (which also pre-cluded the possibility of testing forpossible moderators), and the resultswere also limited by the fact that only 2of them used a longitudinal design.
Subsequently, another meta-analysis3
has analyzed data from longitudinalstudies that measured a variety ofinternalizing problems, including psy-chosomatic symptoms. Overall, thismeta-analysis has confirmed that peervictimization is positively associated
with poor well-being. However, Reijntjesand colleagues’ review included only 2studies that measured psychosomaticsymptoms; unfortunately, these symp-toms were not distinguished from othertypes of internalizing problems (eg, de-pression, anxiety, or loneliness), but apooled correlation for each study wascomputed, with no comparison betweenbullied and nonbullied children.
Since the publication of the first meta-analysis in 2009, several other studiesthat assessed the risk for psychoso-matic problems in bullied children havebeen added to the literature, includingsome studies that used a longitudinaldesign. This new meta-analysis seeksto update and expand both Gini andPozzoli’s and Reijntjes and colleagues’meta-analyses3,12 by (1) including thesubsequently published studies thatallowed to estimate the risk for psy-chosomatic problems in children andadolescents who are bullied by peers(ie, cases) compared with nonbulliedpeers (ie, controls), (2) performingseparate meta-analyses of longitudinaland cross-sectional studies, and (3)testing for potential moderators of vari-ation in the magnitude of effect sizes.
METHODS
Literature Search
Four methods were used to identify rel-evant studies. First, electronic searchesin PsycINFO, PubMed, the Cochrane Li-brary database, the Campbell Collabo-ration database, and Scopus wereconducted inApril 2012with the followingkeywords: “bullying,” “peer victimiza-tion” AND “somatic,” “psychosomatic,”and “physical health.” Second, the “citedby” function in Scopus was used to re-trieve empirical articles that have citedthe previous meta-analysis.12 Third, re-view articles about consequences ofbullying were reviewed for possible rel-evant citations. Finally, the referencesections of the collected articles weresearched for relevant earlier references.
This meta-analysis was planned, con-ducted, and reported in adherence tothe Meta-analysis of Observational Stud-ies in Epidemiology guidelines.13
Inclusion Criteria
A study had to meet the followingapriori criteria tobe included. Themostbasic requirement was the inclusionof measures of peer victimization atschool in childhood or adolescence andof psychosomatic symptoms. Thesemeasures could include self-reportquestionnaires; peer, parent, or teacherreports; or an interview that resultedin a quantitative rating of peer victimi-zation and health problems. Second,studieswere required to have reportedeffect sizes and related confidenceintervals or enough information to cal-culate these data, for example, by re-porting comparisons between bulliedchildren and a control group (definedas children from thesamepopulationofvictims who were classified as notbullied). We excluded the followingtypes of studies: studies that did notinclude a control group; studies thatmeasured psychosomatic symptomswith items included in a larger scale,because these symptoms could not beclearly distinguished from other prob-lems; studies with duplicated data;studies that did not report analyses onthe variables of interest; and studieswith adults or psychiatric patients. Theauthors independentlyassessedwhetherarticlesmet the inclusioncriteria. In thecase of disagreement, a consensuswasreached through discussion.
Coding of Studies
Studies were coded on design (cross-sectional versus longitudinal), lengthof follow-up for longitudinal studies, typeof bullying measure (self-report ques-tionnaire versus peer or adult reportsversus interview), typeofpsychosomaticsymptoms measured, type of samplingprocedure, sample composition and char-acteristics, and geographic location of
REVIEW ARTICLE
PEDIATRICS Volume 132, Number 4, October 2013 721
study. Quantitative data were extractedfrom text and tables; for the sake ofcomparability with the results of theformer meta-analysis,12 the data thatwere adjusted for important con-founders (eg, gender, age, ethnicity, orparental education) were preferred.
Statistical Analyses
Eleven studies reported an effect basedon a single composite score for psy-chosomatic complaints, whereas theremaining studies reported data fora number of different symptoms dis-tinctly (eg, headache, stomachache,backache, abdominal pain, dizziness,sleeping problems, poor appetite, bed-wetting, skin problems, vomiting; seeTable 1). Because the number and thetype of symptoms varied systemati-cally across studies, following Gini andPozzoli’s original procedure,12 the ORfor each symptom was extracted, andthen a pooled OR was computed fromeach study. (Items that referred topsychological problems, such as anxi-ety or depression, were not included inthis computation.) This procedureallowed a direct comparison with theresults of the former meta-analysis.The case group included victims, thatis, children who are bullied by peers.The control group featured childrenwho have not been bullied. With veryfew exceptions, studies did not reportresults for boys and girls separately;therefore, we were not able to compareeffect sizes for these two groups ofchildren. Because most of the studiesreported the proportion of girls in thesample, we used this information totest for possible moderation by gender.
Analyses were done using Compre-hensive Meta-Analysis.14 We extractedthe OR and 95% CI from each study. Datafrom individual studies were pooled byusing a random effects model. Eachstudy was weighted by the inverse of itsvariance, which, under the random ef-fects model, includes the within-study
variance plus the between-studiesvariance t-squared (Τ2). The z statis-tic was calculated, and a two-tailedP value of ,.05 was considered to in-dicate statistical significance. Statisti-cal heterogeneity was assessed byusing the Q statistic to evaluatewhether the pooled studies representa homogeneous distribution of effectsizes. Also reported is the I2 statistic,indicating the proportion of observedvariance that reflects real differencesin effect size.15
Toaddress thepossiblepublicationbias(ie, the fact that studies with non-significant results are less likely to bepublished), we computed the fail-safe N(Nfs) according to the method Orwin16
proposed, which is more conservativethan the traditional Rosenthal Nfs.17,18
Orwin’s Nfs determines the number ofadditional studies in a meta-analysisyielding null effect sizes that wouldbe needed to yield a “trivial” OR of1.05. Researchers suggest that meta-analysts calculate a tolerance levelaround a fail-safe N that is equal to 5times the number of effects included inthemeta-analysis plus 10 (the “5k + 10”benchmark).18,19 Moreover, the associ-ation between the standardized effectsizes and the variances of these effectswas analyzed by rank correlation withuse of the Kendall t method. If smallstudies with negative results were lesslikely to be published, the correlationbetween variance and effect size wouldbe high. Conversely, a lack of a signifi-cant correlation can be interpreted asthe absence of publication bias.20
RESULTS
After the removal of duplicates, a list of119 potentially eligible studies wasgenerated (Fig 1). Based on titles andabstracts, 55 articles were excluded atthe first screening because they werequalitative studies, reviews or commen-taries, or studies that did not measureschool bullying. Full-text copies of the
remaining 64 potentially relevant stud-ies were obtained. Fourteen studieswere excluded because they did notmeet the inclusion criteria (eg, they didnot have a control group). Fifteen stud-ies did not report enough data to com-pute effect sizes or confidence intervals.Five studies were not available in fulltext. The remaining 30 studies were in-cluded for this meta-analysis. Six stud-ies were longitudinal studies, and 24used a cross-sectional design.
Table 1 summarizes the characteristicsof the studies included in this meta-analysis, including sample size andresponse rate, age and gender com-position of the sample, type of mea-sures, symptomsmeasured, studydesign,and type of sampling. A total of 219 560children and adolescents participatedin the 30 studies. Across the 26 studiesthat provided information about thesample’s gender composition, 50.2%(range, 32.8% to 62.4%) of the partic-ipants were girls.
Five studies were from Norway, 2 ofwhich were from the same publi-cation28,34,35,38; 4 from the UnitedStates22,23,27,43; 3 from Australia8,11,37; 2from the United Kingdom44,45; 2 from theNetherlands7,25; 2 from Finland31,36; 2from India33,40; and 1, respectively, fromAustria,26 China,29 France,30 Germany,41
Greenland,42 Italy,10 Mexico,21 and Tur-key.32 Two articles reported data frommultiple countries.24,39 Information aboutrace or ethnicity and socioeconomicstatus (SES) of the participants was notsystematically reported in all studies.Overall, the heterogeneity of racial andSES classification within and across thestudies was such that it precluded anal-ysis by race and ethnicity or SES.
Meta-analysis of LongitudinalStudies
Six studies used a longitudinal design.The follow-up duration ranged from 9months to 11 years. Across the 6 sam-ples, bullied children were found to
722 GINI and POZZOLI
TABLE1
Characteristicsof
StudiesIncluded
intheMeta-analysis
Source
SampleSize
(responserate)
AgeRange,
y(%
girls)
BullyingMeasure
Symptom
Measure
Symptom
sReported
Adjustmentfor
Confounders
StudyDesign
Type
ofSampling
Albores-Gallo
etal(2011)
21340(n/a)
7–11
(n/a)
Peer
nomination
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Singlescore
None
Cross-sectional
Convenience
sample
Biebletal(2011)22
65(n/a)
12–20
attim
e3(52.9)
Time1:play
session;
time3:self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Singlescore
Gender
Longitudinal
Convenience
sample
Burk
etal(2011)
23344(60%
)7–15
(52.3)
Multi-inform
ant(self-,
teacher-,parent
report)
Multi-inform
ant
(self-,teacher-,
parent
report)
Singlescore
None
Longitudinal
Convenience
sample
Dueetal(2005)
24123227(.
90%)
11–15
(51)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache,stomachache,
backache,sleeping
difficulties,tired
inthe
morning,dizziness,
irritable,feelingnervous
Age,family
affluence,
country
Cross-sectional
Clusterrandom
sampling
Fekkes
etal(2004)
72766
(100%)
9–12
(50)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache,skinproblems,
abdominalpain,tense
muscles,feelingtired,
badappetite
Gender
Cross-sectional
Unknow
n
Fekkes
etal(2006)
251118
(70%
)9–11
(50.3)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Abdominalpain,sleeping
problems,headache,
feelingtense,feelingtired,
poor
appetite,bedw
etting
Gender,age,having
friends
Longitudinal
Unknow
n
Forero
etal(1999)
83918
(86%
)11–15
(54.3)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Singlescore
Clusters
within
schools
Cross-sectional
Clusterrandom
sampling
Gini(2008)
10565(94%
)8–11
(52.9)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache,abdom
inalpain,
feelingtired,feelingtense,
sleeping
problems,
dizziness
Gender,age
Cross-sectional
Simplerandom
sampling
Gradinger
etal(2009)
26761(95%
)14–19
(51.5)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Singlescore
None
Cross-sectional
Convenience
sample
Gruber
andFineran
(2008)
27522(51%
)12–17
(42.9)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Singlescore
None
Cross-sectional
Convenience
sample
Haavetetal(2004)
288316
(88%
)15
(54.4)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache,painfrom
neck
orshoulder
None
Cross-sectional
Populationstudy
Heskethetal
(2010)
292191
(80%
)9–12
(44)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache,abdom
inalpain
Gender,age,residence,
parentaleducation
Cross-sectional
Simplerandom
sampling
Houbre
etal(2006)
30291(95%
)9–12
(n/a)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Skinconditions,sleeping
disorders,digestive
disorders,somaticpain,
vegetativesymptom
s,diarrhea,and
constipation
None
Cross-sectional
Convenience
sample
Kaltiala-Heino
etal(2000)
3117
643(87%
)14–16
(49.3)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Singlescore
Age,gender,fam
ilystructure,parental
education
Cross-sectional
Convenience
sample
REVIEW ARTICLE
PEDIATRICS Volume 132, Number 4, October 2013 723
TABLE1
Continued
Source
SampleSize
(responserate)
AgeRange,
y(%
girls)
BullyingMeasure
Symptom
Measure
Symptom
sReported
Adjustmentfor
Confounders
StudyDesign
Type
ofSampling
Karatasand
Ozturk
(2011)
3292
(82%
)10–12
(51.1)
Self-report
questionnaire
Parent
report
questionnaire
Headache,abdom
inalpain,
stom
achache,backache,
skinproblems,restlessness,
nervousness,sleeping
problems,dizziness,
respiratoryproblems,poor
appetite
None
Cross-sectional
Simplerandom
sampling
Kshirsagar
etal(2007)
33500(100%)
8–12
(62.4)
Semistructured
interview
Semistructured
interview
Headache,tum
myaches,
body
ache,has
failed,bites
nails,sleep
problems,
vomiting,bedwetting
Notspecified
Longitudinal
Simplerandom
sampling
Lien
etal(2009)
(sam
ple1)
343790
(88%
)15–16
(49.3)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache;paininneck
orshoulder;paininarm,
leg,or
knee;abdom
inal
pain;backpain
SES,family
structure,
ethnicity,exposure
toviolence,having
closefriends
Cross-sectional
Populationstudy
Lien
etal(2009)
(sam
ple2)
343790
(80%
)18–19
(55.9)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache;paininneck
orshoulder;paininarm,
leg,or
knee;abdom
inal
pain;backpain
SES,family
structure,
ethnicity,exposureto
violence,havingclose
friends
Cross-sectional
Populationstudy
Løhreetal(2011)
35419(100%)
7–16
(n/a)
Multi-inform
ant
(self-,teacher-,
parent
report)
Self-report
questionnaire
Stom
achache,headache
Gender,grade
Cross-sectional
Convenience
sample
Luntam
oetal(2012)
362215
(91%
)13–18
(50)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache,abdom
inalpain,
sleepproblems
None
Cross-sectional
Populationstudy
McGee
etal(2011)
371806
(n/a)
14–21
(51.8)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Singlescore
Childhood
aggression,
socialor
thought
problembehaviors,
poverty,physical
punishment
Longitudinal
Populationstudy
Natvigetal(2001)
38856(83.7%
)13–15
(50.6)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache,stomachache,
backache,feelingdizzy,
irritability,feelingnervous,
sleeplessness
Gender,age,school
Cross-sectional
Unknow
n
Nordhagen
etal(2005)
3917
114(68%
)2–17
(49.1)
Parent
report
questionnaire
Parent
report
questionnaire
Singlescore
Gender,age,country,
livingarea,fam
ilysituation,education
Cross-sectional
Stratified
random
sampling
Ramya
andKulkarni
(2011)
40500(n/a)
8–14
(32.8)
Interview
Interview
Headache,tum
myache,
bedw
etting,fever
None
Cross-sectional
Simplerandom
sampling
Richteretal
(2007)
415650
(70%
–80%)
11–15
(49.8)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Singlescore
None
Cross-sectional
Clusterrandom
sampling
Rigby(1999)
1178
(28.3%
)Time1:13.8,
Time2:16.7(44.9)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Singlescore
None
Longitudinal
Convenience
sample
Schnohrand
Niclasen
(2006)
42891(n/a)
11–15
(n/a)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache,stomachache,
sleeping
difficulties
Gender,age
Cross-sectional
Clusterrandom
sampling
724 GINI and POZZOLI
have a significantly higher risk forpsychosomatic problems than non-bullied agemates were (OR = 2.39, 95%CI, 1.76 to 3.24, Z = 5.62, P , .0001).Figure 2 shows the forest plot for thismeta-analysis. Studies were highly ho-mogeneous (Q = 4.94, P = .42, I2 = 0%).Furthermore, no evidence of publica-tion bias was present. Kendall’s t was.53 with two-tailed P = .13. An additional102 studies with null effect sizes wouldbe needed to attenuate this omnibus
effect size to a trivial effect (5k + 10benchmark = 40).
Meta-analysis of Cross-SectionalStudies
Across the 24 samples that were in-cluded in the cross-sectional studies,bullied children were found to havea significantly higher risk for psycho-somatic problems than were non-bullied peers (OR = 2.17, 95% CI, 1.91 to2.46, Z = 12.09, P , .0001). Figure 3
TABLE1
Continued
Source
SampleSize
(responserate)
AgeRange,
y(%
girls)
BullyingMeasure
Symptom
Measure
Symptom
sReported
Adjustmentfor
Confounders
StudyDesign
Type
ofSampling
Srabsteinetal
(2006)
4315
305(83%
)11–15
(53.5)
Self-report
questionnaire
Self-report
questionnaire
Headache,stomachache,
dizziness,backache,
irritability,feelingnervous,
sleeping
problems
Gender,age,race,
overweight,maternal
education
Cross-sectional
Clusterrandom
sampling
Williamsetal
(1996)
442962
(93.1%
)7–10
(n/a)
Semistructured
interview
Semistructured
interview
Sleeping
problems,bed
wetting,headache,
tummyache
Notspecified
Cross-sectional
Populationstudy
Wolke
etal(2001)
451639
(82%
)6–9(49.6)
Interview
Parent
report
questionnaire
Sore
throat,coldor
coughs,
breathingproblems,
nausea,poorappetite
Gender,schoolyear,
ethnicminority
Cross-sectional
Convenience
sample
n/a,notavailable.
FIGURE 1Flow diagram of study inclusion.
FIGURE 2Forest plot for random effects meta-analysis of the association between being bullied and psycho-somatic problems: longitudinal studies. Note: Effect sizes are expressed as odds ratios. Studies arerepresented by symbols whose area is proportional to the study’s weight in the analysis.
REVIEW ARTICLE
PEDIATRICS Volume 132, Number 4, October 2013 725
shows the forest plot for this meta-analysis. Effect sizes within this groupof studies were not homogeneous (Q =103.06, P , .001, I2 = 77.7%). Again, noevidence of publication bias was pres-ent. Kendall’s t was .05 with two-tailedP= .75. An additional 325 studieswith nulleffect sizeswould be needed to attenuatethis omnibus effect size to a negligiblevalue (5k + 10 benchmark = 130).
Moderator analyses with gender com-position of the sample, geographic lo-cation, and type of informant wereperformed to explore possible explan-ations for heterogeneity in the effectsizes across cross-sectional studies.The proportion of girls in the samplewas available for 20 of the 24 cross-sectional studies, and it was used asa continuous predictor in a weightedmixed-effects metaregression. Themagnitudeof theeffect sizesignificantlydecreased with an increase in thenumber of female participants in thestudy sample (B =20.04, 95% CI,20.07to 20.02, P , .002). The study’s geo-graphic location (coded as Europeversus other countries) was not a sig-nificant moderator (k = 15, OR = 2.19,95% CI, 1.82 to 2.62, and k = 8, OR = 2.16,
95% CI, 1.61 to 2.90, respectively; Q =0.004, P = .95).
Moreover, thepotentialmoderatingroleof amethodological feature, namely thetype of informant, was tested. Twentystudies used the participant as an in-formant for involvement in bullying (ie,used self-report questionnaires orinterviews with the child), and only 4studies collected data through otherinformants (ie, peers or parents). Effectsizes did not vary as a function of thetype of informant associated with bul-lyingexperiences (OR=2.17,95%CI, 1.86to2.53 for self-reports, OR=2.18, 95%CI,1.55 to 3.06 for other informants; Q =0.00, P = .98). Similarly, 19 studies col-lected information about symptomsfrom the participants themselves (OR =2.21, 95% CI, 1.90 to 2.58), whereas 5studies asked other informants (OR =2.00, 95% CI, 1.47 to 2.72). Also, the ef-fect of this moderator was not statis-tically significant: Q = 0.37, P = .57.
Finally, as in the formermeta-analysis,12
a sensitivity analysis was performedbased on the quality of the studies.Quality was assessed through 2 crite-ria (beyond those required as inclusioncriteria): the use of a randomized
sampling design or a whole populationof students and a good response rate(.80%). Twelve studies satisfied bothcriteria. We then performed a separatemeta-analysis of this subgroup ofstudies, and the results were OR = 2.10,95% CI, 1.87 to 2.46.
DISCUSSION
Our meta-analysis showed that bulliedpupils are at least two timesmore likelythan nonbullied agemates to havepsychosomatic problems. Thus, thisupdated meta-analysis confirmed thefindings of the former meta-analyticsynthesis12 with a much larger sampleof studies. Importantly, the same resultwas found not only with cross-sectionalstudies but also in a meta-analysis of 6studies that used a longitudinal design.Finally, the meta-regression analysisshowed that the strength of the re-lationship between being bullied andhaving health problems is higher whensamples contain proportionally moreboys. Given the explorative nature ofthis analysis, a significant finding is notto be considered definitive, but it doessuggest a direction for additional re-search. A possible explanation mightdeal with the fact that a school orclassroom environment with a higherproportion of male students is a con-text in which bullying behavior is morelikely to happen and where supportiveand helping behaviors in favor of thebullied pupils are less frequent.46 Thiscould increase the negative impact ofbeing bullied on children’s health. Theinfluence of the school environment’sgender composition on peer victimiza-tion and its consequences for child-ren’s well-being is a topic that warrantsadditional research.
Since the former meta-analysis, thenumber of studies testing the associ-ation between bullying experiences andpsychosomatic problems has tripled.We can reasonably conclude that thisassociation is established, and we call
FIGURE 3Forest plot for random effects meta-analysis of the association between being bullied and psycho-somatic problems: cross-sectional studies. Note: Effect sizes are expressed as odds ratios. Studies arerepresented by symbols whose area is proportional to the study’s weight in the analysis.
726 GINI and POZZOLI
for new research efforts aimed atelucidating the mechanisms throughwhich bullying affects children’s health.We also call for research that inves-tigates how other environmental fac-tors interact with peer victimizationexperiences to determine health risk.However, not all children are at thesame risk for developing health prob-lems: Some children may be more re-silient than others against a high-riskenvironment. To explain this adaptivesuccess, protective factors must beconsidered. For example, supportiveparent–child relationships, character-ized by parental warmth, supervision,support, and involvement, may protectchildren from adverse life experiencesat school, such as being bullied bypeers, and thus reduce negative con-sequences. Similarly, attachment toschool, sense of belonging, and schoolsupport may be related to better stu-dent health. Longitudinal studies thataddress the mediating role of theseand other environmental factors on thepeer victimization–health problemslink are much needed.
Strengths and Limitations
The strengths of this meta-analysis in-clude the much larger number ofstudies that were available this timecompared with the former meta-analysis. Another strength is the widegeographic distribution of the samples,which were derived from several dif-ferent countries around the world.Furthermore, we were able to performseparate meta-analyses of longitudinaland cross-sectional studies, whichyielded the same results. Finally, we didnot find evidence of publication biasthat may have led to overestimating theassociation between bullying and psy-chosomatic problems.
Meta-analysis is an invaluable tool forintegratingprior research, illuminatingresearch gaps, and defining prioritiesfor future research. However, the fact
that the major limitations of the liter-ature that were highlighted in the firstmeta-analysis are still present is star-tling to see. Forexample,much variabilityexists in the methods and instrumentsused to assess the prevalence of symp-toms and peer victimization experiences.The majority of studies used a variety ofself-report questionnaires, both for peervictimization and for children’s healthcomplaints. In some cases, these mea-sures were reduced to a single-itemquestionnaire. Self-report measuresare very common in bullying researchand are usually considered to be validand reliable.47 However, possible pro-blems with these instruments are thatthey require a good level of respond-ents’self-consciousness and that somebullied children may deny their condi-tion. Finally, associations between dataderived from the same source (ie,when children self-report both bullyingexperiences and health problems)might be inflated by the commonmethod variance. For these reasons,we stress the need for future studies tocollect information through multipleindependent informants, such as chil-dren themselves, their peers within theclass, and their teachers or parents.Moreover, it is important that research-ers choose validated and widely usedinstruments rather than ad hoc or newlydeveloped scales with no evidence ofreliability or validity. Also, the assess-ment of children’s physical health mustbe improved. For example, none of theavailable studies included independentobjective information, such as children’sschool absenteeism extracted fromschool attendance records or their visitsto the school nurse office.
Furthermore, thestudies includedin thismeta-analysis, and in the former meta-analysis, did not measure differentforms of victimization separately (ie,physical and relational victimization) ordid not report separate analyses fordifferent forms of victimization. Despite
their overlapping, research has dem-onstrated the importance of dis-tinguishing the 2 forms of victimizationbecause they may be differentially re-lated to personal adjustment.48 Futurestudies should analyze the negativehealth consequences of physical andrelational victimization experiences.
Finally, our meta-analysis shares thesame limitations of all meta-analyses ofobservational studies. Because indi-viduals cannot be randomlyallocated togroups, the influence of confoundingvariables cannot be fully evaluated.Although many studies controlled forimportant confounding variables, suchas parental education and socioeco-nomic status or exposure to violenceoutside of school, other unknown con-founders could be partially responsiblefor the effect observed.
Implications for Practitioners
Thestudiesreviewedsupported the factthat bullied children have more fre-quent psychosomatic problems thannonbullied pupils. Moreover, this meta-analysis significantly complements thegrowing body of research that docu-ments the poor personal adjustment ofbullied children and adolescents, interms of both internalizing and exter-nalizing problems, which other recentmeta-analyses on the psychosocialconsequences of peer victimization3,4,49
summarize. Altogether, these resultshave significant implications for pedia-tricians, child psychologists, and otherhealth care professionals. It is very im-portant that these professionals beready to identify children who are atrisk for being bullied because the po-tential negative health, psychological,and educational consequences of bul-lying experiences are far-reaching.
Pediatricians can play an important rolein detecting potential victims of bullyingif they consider bullying as a possiblerisk factor in any patient with recurrentheadaches, breathing problems, poor
REVIEW ARTICLE
PEDIATRICS Volume 132, Number 4, October 2013 727
appetite, sleeping problems, and so on.Any recurrent and unexplained somaticsymptom can be a warning sign of bul-lying victimization. Because children donot easily talk about their bullyingexperiences, pediatricians could ap-proach the issue of bullying throughgeneral questions, for example, by in-quiring about the child’s experience andfriends in school. If the child seems to bewithdrawn from peers, the pediatricianshould ask for the reason and de-termine whether teasing, name calling,or deliberate exclusionmay be involved.
Asking whether the child feels safe atschool can also allow the pediatrician togain insight into the level of concern thechild is experiencing.
Moreover, pediatricians could rou-tinely review the warning signs ofbullying with parents to help themidentify problems with bullying theirchild may be experiencing. Preventivemeasures can also include counselingparents about bullying experiences asa risk factor for children’s well-beingand the importance of promoting
development of social skills and as-sertiveness in their children. Pedia-tricians’ suggestions are likely to beparticularly effective given the highconfidence that parents usually put inthese professionals. Furthermore, par-ents should be encouraged to ask forschool support when a case of bullyingemerges. Breaking the cycle of victimi-zation through early identification andprompt intervention may prevent per-sistent physical and mental healthproblems in children who experiencebullying.
REFERENCES
1. Callaghan S, Joseph S. Self-concept andpeer victimization among schoolchildren.Pers Individ Dif. 1995;18(1):161–163
2. Hodges EVE, Perry DG. Personal and in-terpersonal antecedents and consequencesof victimization by peers. J Pers Soc Psy-chol. 1999;76(4):677–685
3. Reijntjes AHA, Kamphuis JH, Prinzie P, TelchMJ. Peer victimization and internalizingproblems in children: a meta-analysis oflongitudinal studies. Child Abuse Negl.2010;34(4):244–252
4. Ttofi MM, Farrington DP, Losel F, Loeber R.Do the victims of school bullies tend tobecome depressed later in life? A system-atic review and meta-analysis of longitu-dinal studies. JACPR. 2011;3(2):63–73
5. Cleary SD. Adolescent victimization andassociated suicidal and violent behaviors.Adolescence. 2000;35(140):671–682
6. Kim YS, Koh YJ, Leventhal B. School bullyingand suicidal risk in Korean middle schoolstudents. Pediatrics. 2005;115(2):357–363
7. Fekkes M, Pijpers FIM, Verloove-VanhorickSP. Bullying behavior and associations withpsychosomatic complaints and depressionin victims. J Pediatr. 2004;144(1):17–22
8. Forero R, McLellan L, Rissel C, Bauman A.Bullying behaviour and psychosocial healthamong school students in New SouthWales, Australia: cross sectional survey.BMJ. 1999;319(7206):344–348
9. Berntsson LT, Köhler L, Gustafsson JE. Psy-chosomatic complaints in schoolchildren:a Nordic comparison. Scand J PublicHealth. 2001;29(1):44–54
10. Gini G. Associations between bullying be-haviour, psychosomatic complaints, emo-tional and behavioural problems. JPaediatr Child Health. 2008;44(9):492–497
11. Rigby K. Peer victimisation at school andthe health of secondary school students. BrJ Educ Psychol. 1999;69(pt 1):95–104
12. Gini G, Pozzoli T. Association between bul-lying and psychosomatic problems: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2009;123(3):1059–1065
13. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemi-ology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysisof Observational Studies in Epidemiology(MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008–2012
14. Comprehensive Meta-Analysis [computerprogram]. Version 2.2. Englewood, NJ: Bio-stat; 2006.
15. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, AltmanDG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327(7414):557–560
16. Orwin RG. A fail-safe N for effect size inmeta-analysis. J Educ Stat. 1983;8(2):157–159
17. Rosenthal R. Combining results of in-dependent studies. Psychol Bull. 1978;85(1):185–193
18. Rosenthal R. The file drawer problem andtolerance for null results. Psychol Bull.1979;86(3):638–641
19. Muellerleile P, Mullen B. Sufficiency andstability of evidence for public health inter-ventions using cumulative meta-analysis.Am J Public Health. 2006;96(3):515–522
20. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating charac-teristics of a rank correlation test forpublication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50(4):1088–1101
21. Albores-Gallo L, Sauceda-García JM, Ruiz-Velasco S, Roque-Santiago E. El acoso escolar(bullying) y su asociación con trastornospsiquiátricos en una muestra de escolares
en México [Bullying and its associationwith psychiatric disorders in a Mexicanstudents sample]. Salud Publica Mex. 2011;53(3):220–227
22. Biebl SJ, Dilalla LF, Davis EK, Lynch KA, ShinnSO. Longitudinal associations among peervictimization and physical and mentalhealth problems. J Pediatr Psychol. 2011;36(8):868–877
23. Burk LR, Armstrong JM, Park JH, Zahn-Waxler C, Klein MH, Essex MJ. Stability ofearly identified aggressive victim status inelementary school and associations withlater mental health problems and func-tional impairments. J Abnorm Child Psy-chol. 2011;39(2):225–238
24. Due P, Holstein BE, Lynch J, et al; HealthBehaviour in School-Aged Children BullyingWorking Group. Bullying and symptomsamong school-aged children: internationalcomparative cross sectional study in 28countries. Eur J Public Health. 2005;15(2):128–132
25. Fekkes M, Pijpers FIM, Fredriks AM, VogelsT, Verloove-Vanhorick SP. Do bullied chil-dren get ill, or do ill children get bullied? Aprospective cohort study on the relation-ship between bullying and health-relatedsymptoms. Pediatrics. 2006;117(5):1568–1574
26. Gradinger P, Strohmeier D, Spiel C. Tradi-tional bullying and cyberbullying: identifi-cation of risk groups for adjustmentproblems. Z Psychol. 2009;217(4):205–213
27. Gruber JE, Fineran S. Comparing the impactof bullying and sexual harassment victimi-zation on the mental and physical health ofadolescents. Sex Roles. 2008;59:1–13
28. Haavet OR, Straand J, Saugstad OD, GrünfeldB. Illness and exposure to negative life
728 GINI and POZZOLI
experiences in adolescence: two sides of thesame coin? A study of 15-year-olds in Oslo,Norway. Acta Paediatr. 2004;93(3):405–411
29. Hesketh T, Zhen Y, Lu L, Dong ZX, Jun YX,Xing ZW. Stress and psychosomatic symp-toms in Chinese school children: cross-sectional survey. Arch Dis Child. 2010;95(2):136–140
30. Houbre B, Tarquinio C, Thuillier I, Hergott E.Bullying among students and its con-sequences on health. Eur J Psychol Educ.2006;21(2):183–208
31. Kaltiala-Heino R, Rimpelä M, Rantanen P,Rimpelä A. Bullying at school: an indicatorof adolescents at risk for mental disorders.J Adolesc. 2000;23(6):661–674
32. Karatas H, Ozturk C. Relationship between bul-lying and health problems in primary schoolchildren. Asian Nurs Res. 2011;5(2):81–87
33. Kshirsagar VY, Agarwal R, Bavdekar SB. Bul-lying in schools: prevalence and short-termimpact. Indian Pediatr. 2007;44(1):25–28
34. Lien L, Green K, Welander-Vatn A, BjertnessE. Mental and somatic health complaintsassociated with school bullying between10th and 12th grade students: results fromcross sectional studies in Oslo, Norway.Clin Pract Epidemiol Ment Health. 2009;5:6
35. Løhre A, Lydersen S, Paulsen B, Mæhle M,Vatten LJ. Peer victimization as reported bychildren, teachers, and parents in relationto children’s health symptoms. BMC PublicHealth. 2011;11:278
36. Luntamo T, Sourander A, Rihko M, et al. Psy-chosocial determinants of headache, abdom-inal pain, and sleep problems in a communitysample of Finnish adolescents. Eur ChildAdolesc Psychiatry. 2012;21(6):301–313
37. McGee TR, Scott JG, McGrath JJ, et al. Youngadult problem behaviour outcomes of ado-lescent bullying. JACPR. 2011;3(2):110–114
38. Natvig GK, Albrektsen G, Qvarnstrøm U.Psychosomatic symptoms among victims ofschool bullying. J Health Psychol. 2001;6(4):365–377
39. Nordhagen R, Nielsen A, Stigum H, Köhler L.Parental reported bullying among Nordicchildren: a population-based study. ChildCare Health Dev. 2005;31(6):693–701
40. Ramya SG, Kulkarni ML. Bullying amongschool children: prevalence and associa-tion with common symptoms in childhood.Indian J Pediatr. 2011;78(3):307–310
41. Richter M, Bowles D, Melzer W, HurrelmannK. Bullying, psychosoziale Gesundheit undRisikoverhalten im Jugendalter [Bullying,psychosocial health and risk behaviour inadolescence]. Gesundheitswesen. 2007;69(8–9):475–482
42. Schnohr C, Niclasen BV. Bullying amongGreenlandic schoolchildren: developmentsince 1994 and relations to health andhealth behaviour. Int J Circumpolar Health.2006;65(4):305–312
43. Srabstein JC, McCarter RJ, Shao C, HuangZJ. Morbidities associated with bullying
behaviors in adolescents. School basedstudy of American adolescents. Int J Ado-lesc Med Health. 2006;18(4):587–596
44. Williams K, Chambers M, Logan S, RobinsonD. Association of common health symptomswith bullying in primary school children.BMJ. 1996;313(7048):17–19
45. Wolke D, Woods S, Bloomfield L, Karstadt L.Bullying involvement in primary school andcommon health problems. Arch Dis Child.2001;85(3):197–201
46. Pozzoli T, Gini G, Vieno A. Individual andclass moral disengagement in bullyingamong elementary school children. Ag-gress Behav. 2012;38(5):378–388
47. Ladd GW, Kochenderfer-Ladd BJ. Identifyingvictims of peer aggression from early tomiddle childhood: analysis of cross-informant data for concordance, estimationof relational adjustment, prevalence of vic-timization, and characteristics of identifiedvictims. Psychol Assess. 2002;14(1):74–96
48. Crick NR, Bigbee MA. Relational and overtforms of peer victimization: a multiinfor-mant approach. J Consult Clin Psychol.1998;66(2):337–347
49. Reijntjes AHA, Kamphuis JH, Prinzie P, Boe-len PA, van der Schoot M, Telch MJ. Pro-spective linkages between peer victimizationand externalizing problems in children:a meta-analysis. Aggress Behav. 2011;37(3):215–222
A Message From the Editor of Pediatrics: In its January 2013 issue, Pediatricspublished a case report entitled “Lethal Effect of a Single Dose of Rasburicase ina Preterm Newborn Infant.” The authors included two physicians (Patrizia Zar-amelia, MD, and Alessandra DeSalvia, PhD, MD), who disclosed that they served aspaid expert witnesses in the case reported in this article. Although the authors ofthe case report refer to the infant as “our patient,” Pediatrics has since learnedthat none of the authors of the case report treated the infant who is the subject ofthe case report. Pediatrics has also learned that this case is the subject ofpending criminal and civil proceedings in Italy, that Drs. Zaramelia and DeSalviawere appointed as expert witnesses for the prosecution in the criminal pro-ceedings and that the medical conclusions in the article are being contested bythe opposing parties and their experts.
REVIEW ARTICLE
PEDIATRICS Volume 132, Number 4, October 2013 729