Welcome! This work received support from KT Canada funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health

Research (CIHR)

School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization:

Evidence and implications for public health

You will be placed on hold until the webinar begins. The webinar will begin shortly, please remain on the line.

Funding & Partners

Housekeeping Use Q&A to post comments/questions

during the webinar •‘Send’ questions to All (not privately to

‘Host’)

Connection issues •Recommend using a wired Internet

connection (vs. wireless), to help prevent connection challenges

WebEx 24/7 help line: 1-866-229-3239

Q&A

Participant Side Panel in WebEx

The Health Evidence Team

Maureen Dobbins Scientific Director Tel: 905 525-9140 ext 22481 E-mail: dobbinsm@mcmaster.ca

Kara DeCorby Managing Director

Lori Greco Knowledge Broker

Robyn Traynor Research Coordinator

Heather Husson Project Manager

Yaso Gowrinathan Research Assistant/ Coordinator

Kelly Graham Research Assistant

Stephanie Workentine Research Assistant

Matt Edmonds Research Assistant

What is www.healthevidence.org?

Evidence

Decision Making

inform

Why use www.healthevidence.org?

1. Saves you time

2. Relevant & current evidence

3. Transparent process

4. Supports for EIDM available

5. Easy to use

A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision Making

Source: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. (revised 2012). A Model for Evidence-Informed Decision-Making in Public Health. [fact sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.nccmt.ca/pubs/FactSheet_EIDM_EN_WEB.pdf

1. Cultivate a culture of inquiry, critical thinking and evidence-based practice “culture”

2. Ask a clear, focused, searchable question 3. Search for the best available evidence

4. Critically appraise the relevant evidence

Evidence-Informed Decision Making

5. Synthesize and integrate the evidence with expertise, local context, and client preference

6. Implement and evaluate the outcome(s) of the

change in practice or policy 7. Engage in knowledge exchange

Evidence-Informed Decision Making

Review Farrington, D.P., & Tfoti, M.M. (2009). School-based programs to reduce bullying and victimization (Report). The Campbell Collaboration, 2009(6), DOI 10.4073/csr.2009.6.

Importance of this Review

• Bullying can have long-term effects on children’s self-esteem and confidence, and elevate lifelong risk for mental disorder, poor academic and vocational achievement, and criminality.

• As many as 25% of students in grades 6-10 say they

have been the victim of bullying once or twice in the past month, and up to 12% say it happens to them at least once per week

Poll Question #1

Who has heard of a PICO(S) question before?

1.Yes 2.No

Searchable Questions Think “PICOS”

1. Population (situation)

2. Intervention (exposure)

3. Comparison (other group)

4. Outcomes

5. Setting

Evidence Summary: Traynor (2013)

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of programs

designed to reduce school bullying perpetration and victimization (i.e. being bullied).

P Students (kindergarten to high school) I School-based anti-bullying programs C No intervention (i.e. usual care) O Prevention or reduction of school bullying

(perpetration and victimization)

Overall Considerations

• Quality Rating: 8 (strong) Methodologically strong review based on 41 program evaluations of moderate methodological quality.

• School-based anti-bullying programs reduced the

rates of both perpetration (i.e. act of bullying) and victimization (i.e. being bullied).

School-Based Anti-Bullying Program Elements

Associated with DECREASE

Associated with INCREASE

Bullying • Parent training/meetings • Disciplinary method • Intensity of program for

children

Victimization • Anti-bullying videos • Disciplinary methods • Duration of program for

children

• Working with peers (including peer mentoring and mediation)

School-Based Anti-Bullying Program Features

Associated with MORE EFFECTIVENESS include: • programs that target older children and

programs with outcome measures twice per month

What’s the evidence - Outcomes reported in the review

1. Bullying (41 studies)

2. Victimization (41 studies)

What’s the evidence – Bullying School-based anti-bullying programs reduced prevalence of bullying (OR 1.36; 95% CI: 1.26 to 1.47; p<0.0001) Design elements associated with a decrease in bullying: • Age of children (i.e. >11 years) (p<0.0001) • Outcome measurement frequency (i.e. >2 times per

month) (p<0.0002)

What’s the evidence – Bullying (Program Elements)

Program elements independently related to bullying effect sizes: • Parents attended meetings to learn about the anti-bullying

initiative: Z=3.25, p<0.001 • Disciplinary methods: (i.e. punitive methods, Z=2.02,

p<0.043) • Intensity for children: (i.e. >20 hours, Z=2.56, p<0.010)

What’s the evidence – Bullying (Program Elements)

Other program elements associated with decreased bullying include: • Playground supervision (p<0.0001) • Duration (>270 days) of program for children (p<0.0001) • Having training for teachers, in general (p<0.006) • Duration(>4 days, p<0.0004) and Intensity (i.e., >10 hours,

p<0.0001) of teacher training • Classroom management (p<0.005) • Classroom rules (p<0.006) • Whole-school anti-bullying policy (p<0.008) • School conferences (p<0.008) • Information for parents (e.g. written materials) (p<0.013) • Cooperative group work (i.e. experts from different

disciplines) (p<0.019)

What’s the evidence - Victimization School-based anti-bullying programs reduced prevalence of victimization (OR 1.29, 95% CI: 1.18 to 1.42, p<0.0001) Design elements associated with a decrease in victimization: • Age of children (i.e. >11 years, p<0.047) • Outcome measure (i.e. >2 times per month, p<0.0001)

What’s the evidence – Victimization (Program Elements)

Program elements independently related to victimization effect sizes: • Use of anti-bullying videos (Z=2.55, p<0.011) • Disciplinary methods (Z=2.35, p<0.019) • Greater duration for children (Z=2.79, p<0.005)

What’s the evidence – Victimization (Program Elements)

Other program elements associated with a decrease in victimization include: • parent training/meetings (p<0.0001) • cooperative group work (p<0.001) • greater intensity for teachers (p<0.028) and children

(p<0.002) • greater duration for teachers (p<0.0003) Interventions involving work with peers (i.e. mediation/mentoring provided by student peers) was associated with an increase in victimization (Z=4.22, p<0.0001)

General Implications School-based anti-bullying programs are effective in reducing school bullying and victimization, particularly when firm disciplinary methods are incorporated. To specifically target bullying, programs should be of high intensity (> 20 hrs) and include training and regular meetings for parents. To specifically target victimization, programs should be of longer duration and be delivered via videos.

General Implications However, due to potential harms, public health programs should not include work with peers. Public health should also consider how the programs are implemented.

It is also important to note that these results are based on a relatively small number of studies.

Questions?

Survey Participation

Your Feedback is greatly appreciated!

Poll Questions # 2 and 3

Contact Us info@healthevidence.org

For a copy of the presentation please visit:

http://www.healthevidence.org/webinars.aspx

Login with your Health Evidence username and password or register if you aren’t a member yet.