Prevalence rates of drug use among school bullies and victims: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional studies

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.05.004Bullying is a common aggressive behaviour in school, with a number of cross-sectional studies showing that it exhibits a high comorbidity with other problem behaviours. The present study aims to estimate the comorbidity of school bullying (perpetration and victimisation) with drug use by incorporating and meta-analysing all available evidence on the cross-sectional association between the two variables. Meta-analytic results are based on a comprehensive systematic review across 20 databases and 46 journals. A total of 61 relevant manuscripts were included in the systematic review. Following explicit methodological criteria for the inclusion/exclusion of reports, 13 of them were eligible for the meta-analysis. The association of school bullying perpetration with drug use (adjusted odds ratio OR = 2.82; 95% CI 1.97–4.02; z = 5.71; p < .001) suggests a very strong relationship. For example, if a quarter of children were bullies and a quarter were drug users, this value of the OR would correspond to 40.88% of bullies being also drug users, compared with 19.71% of non-bullies. The association of school bullying victimisation with drug use (adjusted odds ratio OR = 1.79; 95% CI 1.38–2.32; z = 4.41; p < .001) suggests a moderate relationship. For example, if a quarter of children were victims and a quarter were drug users, this value of the OR would correspond to 33.69% of bullied youth also being drug users, compared with 22.1% of non-bullied youth. Adjusted effect sizes are based on study findings that used statistical controls for confounding variables, thus providing the unique association of school bullying with drug use over and above other important risk factors that may explain this association. Implications for policy and intervention research arising from this review are highlighted

Successful Bullying Prevention Programs: Influence of Research Design, Implementation Features, and Program Components

Bullying prevention programs have been shown to be generally effective in reducing bullying and victimization. However, the effects are relatively small in randomized experiments and greater in quasi-experimental and age-cohort designs. Programs that are more intensive and of longer duration (for both children and teachers) are more effective, as are programs containing more components. Several program components are associated with large effect sizes, including parent training or meetings and teacher training. These results should inform the design and evaluation of anti-bullying programs in the future, and a system of accreditation of effective programs

What can we do to reduce disciplinary school exclusion? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: To systematically review and quantitatively synthesize the evidence for the impact of different types of school-based interventions on the reduction of school exclusion. Methods: A systematic search of 27 databases including published and unpublished literature was carried out between September and December 2015. Eligible studies evaluated interventions intended to reduce the rates of exclusion; targeted children from ages four to 18 in mainstream schools; and reported results of interventions delivered from 1980 onwards. Only randomised controlled trials were included. Two independent reviewers determined study eligibility, extracted data and rated the methodological quality of studies. Results: Based on the thirty-seven studies eligible for meta-analysis, under a random effects model, results showed that school-based interventions significantly reduced school exclusion during the first six months after implementation SMD=.30, 95% CI [.20, .41], p<.001. The impact at follow-up (i.e., 12 or more months) was reduced by half and it was not statistically significant. Heterogeneity was mainly explained by the role of the evaluator: independent evaluators reported lower effect sizes than researchers involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention. Four approaches presented promising and significant results in reducing exclusion: enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers. Conclusions: Results suggest that school-based interventions can be effective in reducing school exclusion in the short term. Some specific types of interventions show more promising and stable results, but, based on the small number of studies involved in our calculations, we suggest that results are interpreted with caution.Nuffield Foundation Beca Chil

Risk factors for dating violence versus cohabiting violence : results from the third generation of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development

BACKGROUND: Dating violence is an important problem. Evidence suggests that women are more likely to perpetrate dating violence. AIMS: The present study investigates the prevalence of dating violence compared with cohabiting violence in a community sample of men and women and assesses to what extent child and adolescent explanatory factors predict this behaviour. A secondary aim is to construct a risk score for dating violence based on the strongest risk factors. METHODS: The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development is a prospective longitudinal survey of 411 men (generation 2) born in the 1950s in an inner London area. Most recently, their sons and daughters [generation 3 (G3)] have been interviewed regarding their perpetration of dating and cohabiting violence, utilising the Conflict Tactics Scale. Risk factors were measured in four domains (family, parental, socio-economic and individual). RESULTS: A larger proportion of women than men perpetrated at least one act of violence towards their dating partner (36.4 vs 21.7%). There was a similar pattern for cohabiting violence (39.6 vs 21.4%). A number of risk factors were significantly associated with the perpetration of dating violence. For G3 women, these included a convicted father, parental conflict, large family size and poor housing. For G3 men, these included having a young father or mother, separation from the father before age 16, early school leaving, frequent truancy and having a criminal conviction. A risk score for both men and women, based on 10 risk factors, significantly predicted dating violence. CONCLUSION: Risk factors from four domains were important in predicting dating violence, but they were different for G3 men and women. It may be important to consider different risk factors and different risk assessments for male compared with female perpetration of dating violence. Early identification and interventions are recommended

School-based interventions for reducing disciplinary school exclusion: a systematic review.

UNLABELLED: This Campbell systematic review examines the impact of interventions to reduce exclusion from school. School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom (in-school) or on school premises (out-of-school). In some extreme cases the student is not allowed to come back to the same school (expulsion). The review summarises findings from 37 reports covering nine different types of intervention. Most studies were from the USA, and the remainder from the UK. Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included. The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear. School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion. Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution. There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour. Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Interventions can reduce school exclusion but the effect is temporary: Some interventions - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, and skills training for teachers - appear to have significant effects on exclusion.The review in brief: Interventions to reduce school exclusion are intended to mitigate the adverse effects of this school sanction. Some approaches, namely those involving enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers, have a temporary effect in reducing exclusion. More evaluations are needed to identify the most effective types of intervention; and whether similar effects are also found in different countries.What is this review about?: School exclusion is associated with undesirable effects on developmental outcomes. It increases the likelihood of poor academic performance, antisocial behavior, and poor employment prospects. This school sanction disproportionally affects males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those with special educational needs.This review assesses the effectiveness of programmes to reduce the prevalence of exclusion.What are the main findings of this review?: What studies are included? Included studies evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions to reduce the rates of exclusion. Interventions were implemented in mainstream schools and targeted school-aged children from four to 18, irrespective of nationality or social background. Only randomised controlled trials are included.The evidence base covers 37 studies. Thirty-three studies were from the USA, three from the UK, and for one study the country was not clear.School-based interventions cause a small and significant drop in exclusion rates during the first six months after intervention (on average), but this effect is not sustained. Interventions seemed to be more effective at reducing some types of exclusion such as expulsion and in-school exclusion.Four intervention types - enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/ monitoring, and skills training for teachers - had significant desirable effects on exclusion. However, the number of studies in each case is low, so this result needs to be treated with caution.There is no impact of the interventions on antisocial behaviour.Variations in effect sizes are not explained by participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, or the quality of the intervention. Independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.What do the findings of this review mean?: School-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention (6 months on average). Four interventions presented promising and significant results in reducing exclusion, that is, enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers. However, since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest these results should be treated with caution.Most of the studies come from the USA. Evaluations are needed from other countries in which exclusion is common. Further research should take advantage of the possibility of conducting cluster-randomised controlled trials, whilst ensuring that the sample size is sufficiently large.How up-to-date is this review?: The review authors searched for studies published up to December 2015. This Campbell systematic review was published in January 2018. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY/ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Schools are important institutions of formal social control (Maimon, Antonaccio, & French, 2012). They are, apart from families, the primary social system in which individuals are socialised to follow specific codes of conduct. Violating these codes of conduct may result in some form of punishment. School punishment is normally accepted by families and students as a consequence of transgression, and in that sense school isoften the place where children are first introduced to discipline, justice, or injustice (Whitford & Levine-Donnerstein, 2014).A wide range of punishments may be used in schools, from verbal reprimands to more serious actions such as detention, fixed term exclusion or even permanent exclusion from the mainstream education system. It must be said that in some way, these school sanctions resemble the penal system and its array of alternatives to punish those that break the law.School exclusion, also known as suspension in some countries, is defined as a disciplinary sanction imposed by a responsible school authority, in reaction to students' misbehaviour. Exclusion entails the removal of pupils from regular teaching for a period during which they are not allowed to be present in the classroom or, in more serious cases, on school premises.Based on the previous definition, this review uses school exclusion and school suspension as synonyms, unless the contrary is explicitly stated. Most of the available research has found that exclusion correlates with subsequent negative sequels on developmental outcomes. Exclusion or suspension of students is associated with failure within the academic curriculum, aggravated antisocial behaviour, and an increased likelihood of involvement with punitive social control institutions (i.e., the Juvenile Justice System). In the long-term, opportunities for training and employment seem to be considerably reduced for those who have repeatedly been excluded. In addition to these negative correlated outcomes, previous evidence suggest that the exclusion of students involves a high economic cost for taxpayers and society.Research from the last 20 years has concluded quite consistently that this disciplinary measure disproportionally targets males, ethnic minorities, those who come from disadvantaged economic backgrounds, and those presenting special educational needs. In other words, suspension affects the most vulnerable children in schools.Different programmes have attempted to reduce the prevalence of exclusion. Although some of them have shown promising results, so far, no comprehensive systematic review has examined these programmes' overall effectiveness.OBJECTIVES: The main goal of the present research is to systematically examine the available evidence for the effectiveness of different types of school-based interventions aimed at reducing disciplinary school exclusion. Secondary goals include comparing different approaches and identifying those that could potentially demonstrate larger and more significant effects.The research questions underlying this project are as follows: Do school-based programmes reduce the use of exclusionary sanctions in schools?Are some school-based approaches more effective than others in reducing exclusionary sanctions?Do participants' characteristics (e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools?Do characteristics of the interventions, implementation, and methodology affect the impact of school-based programmes on exclusionary sanctions in schools? SEARCH METHODS: The authors conducted a comprehensive search to locate relevant studies reporting on the impact of school-based interventions on exclusion from 1980 onwards. Twenty-seven different databases were consulted, including databases that contained both published and unpublished literature. In addition, we contacted researchers in the field of school-exclusion for further recommendations of relevant studies; we also assessed citation lists from previous systematic and narrative reviews and research reports. Searches were conducted from September 1 to December 1, 2015.SELECTION CRITERIA: The inclusion and exclusion criteria for manuscripts were defined before we started our searches. To be eligible, studies needed to have: evaluated school-based interventions or school-supported interventions intended to reduce the rates of suspension; seen the interventions as an alternative to exclusion; targeted school-aged children from four to 18 in mainstream schools irrespective of nationality or social background; and reported results of interventions delivered from 1980 onwards. In terms of methodological design, we included randomised controlled trialsonly, with at least one experimental group and onecontrol or placebo group.DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Initial searches produced a total of 42,749 references from 27 different electronic databases. After screening the title, abstract and key words, we kept 1,474 relevant hits. 22 additional manuscripts were identified through other sources (e.g., assessment of citation lists, contribution of authors). After removing duplicates, we ended up with a total of 517 manuscripts. Two independent coders evaluated each report, to determine inclusion or exclusion.The second round of evaluation excluded 472 papers, with eight papers awaiting classification, and 37 studies kept for inclusion in meta-analysis. Two independent evaluators assessed all the included manuscripts for risk of quality bias by using EPOC tool.Due to the broad scope of our targeted programmes, meta-analysis was conducted under a random-effect model. We report the impact of the intervention using standardised differences of means, 95% confidence intervals along with the respective forest plots. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression were used for examining the impact of the programme. Funnel plots and Duval and Tweedie's trim-and-fill analysis were used to explore the effect of publication bias.RESULTS: Based on our findings, interventions settled in school can produce a small and significant drop in exclusion rates (SMD=.30; 95% CI .20 to .41; p<.001). This means that those participating in interventions are less likely to be suspended than those allocated to control/placebo groups. These results are based on measures of impact collected immediately during the first six months after treatment (on average). When the impact was tested in the long-term (i.e., 12 or more months after treatment), the effects of the interventions were not sustained. In fact, there was a substantive reduction in the impact of school-based programmes (SMD=.15; 95%CI -.06 to .35), and it was no longer statistically significant.We ran analysis testing the impact of school-based interventions on different types of exclusion. Evidence suggests that interventions are more effective at reducing expulsion and in-school exclusion than out-of-school exclusion. In fact, the impact of intervention in out-of-school exclusion was close to zero and not statistically significant.Nine different types of school-based interventions were identified across the 37 studies included in the review. Four of them presented favourable and significant results in reducing exclusion (i.e., enhancement of academic skills, counselling, mentoring/monitoring, skills training for teachers). Since the number of studies for each sub-type of intervention was low, we suggest that results should be treated with caution.A priori defined moderators (i.e., participants' characteristics, the theoretical basis of the interventions, and quality of the intervention)showed not to be effective at explaining the heterogeneity present in our results. Among three post-hoc moderators, the role of the evaluator was found to be significant: independent evaluator teams reported lower effect sizes than research teams who were also involved in the design and/or delivery of the intervention.Two researchers independently evaluated the quality of the evidence involved in this review by using the EPOC tool. Most of the studies did not present enough information for the judgement of quality bias.AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that school-based interventions are effective at reducing school exclusion immediately after, and for a few months after, the intervention. Some specific types of interventions show more promising and stable results than others, namely those involving mentoring/monitoring and those targeting skills training for teachers. However, based on the number of studies involved in our calculations, we suggest that results must be cautiously interpreted. Implications for policy and practice arising from our results are discussed

Childhood predictors and adult life success of adolescent delinquency abstainers

While much is known about adolescent delinquency, considerably less attention has been given to adolescent delinquency abstention. Understanding how or why some adolescents manage to abstain from delinquency during adolescence is informative for understanding and preventing adolescent (minor) delinquency. Using data from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development (N = 411 males) to compare abstainers, self-report delinquents and convicted delinquents we found five childhood factors (ages 8-10) that predicted adolescent abstention (ages 10-18). First, we find that adolescent abstainers possess characteristics opposite to those of convicted delinquents (namely, abstainers are high on honesty, conformity and family income). However, we also found that abstainers also share some childhood characteristics with convicted delinquents (namely, low popularity and low school achievement). A latent class analysis indicated that the mixed factors predicting abstention can be accounted for by two groups of abstainers: an adaptive group characterized by high honesty, and a maladaptive group characterized by low popularity and low school achievement. Further, validation of these two types of abstainers using data collected at age 48 suggested that adaptive abstainers outperform all other adolescents in general life success, whereas maladaptive abstainers only fare better than delinquent adolescents in terms of lower substance use and delinquency later in life

School bullying and drug use later in life: A meta-analytic investigation.

The main aim of this article is to investigate whether there is a significant long-term association between bullying at school and drug use later in life. A meta-analysis is presented based on results from major prospective longitudinal studies with available unadjusted and adjusted effect sizes. Results are based on thorough systematic searches of the literature across 19 databases and 63 journals. The unadjusted summary effect size suggests that youth who bully are at least twice as likely compared with noninvolved students to use drugs later in life (OR = 2.22, 95% CI: 1.60-3.07). The adjusted summary effect size is markedly reduced to an OR of 1.41 (95% CI: 1.20-1.66) suggesting that a lot of variation in the final model is explained by other contributing factors, while bullying has a significant yet small effect over and above the contribution of these factors. Contributing factors include childhood risks falling within the individual, family, and school domains that are significantly associated with both the predictor and the outcome. It is concluded that school bullying, drug use, and other problem behaviors are intercorrelated; thus, highlighting the need to create a meaningful holistic framework for the prevention of drug problems and other associated mental, emotional, and behavioral maladies. Implications for policy and practice arising from these findings are discussed.This study was supported by the British Academy and the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention. The authors declare no conflict of interest with these funding bodies. No contractual constraints on publishing have been imposed by the funders. The authors have no connection with the tobacco, alcohol, pharmaceutical or gaming industries and none of the above industries have been involved in funding of this study.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from the APA via http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq000012

Weapon carrying in and out of school among pure bullies, pure victims and bully-victims: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies

Weapon carrying has detrimental effects for perpetrators and victims alike. It is therefore imperative that research efforts are invested into establishing those contextual factors that are associated with this antisocial behavior. This systematic and meta-analytic review investigates the association of weapon carrying with bullying perpetration and victimization inside and outside the school context. Results on pure bullies, pure victims and bully-victims are also presented. Further to extensive searches, across 20 databases and 46 journals, and careful screening of reports, in line with pre-established methodological criteria, a total of 35 manuscripts are included in the meta-analysis. Narrative results based on longitudinal studies are also presented but not meta-analyzed given the variability in study characteristics and the small number of studies. Weapon carrying is significantly associated with both bullying perpetration (adjusted $\textit{OR}$ = 2.64; $\textit{p}$ < 0.001) and victimization (adjusted $\textit{OR}$ = 1.58; $\textit{p}$ < 0.05). Effect sizes are larger when looking at discrete categories of pure bullies (adjusted $\textit{OR}$ = 3.24; $\textit{p}$ < 0.01), pure victims (adjusted $\textit{OR}$ = 1.79; $\textit{p}$ < 0.05) and bully-victims (adjusted $\textit{OR}$ = 5.66; $\textit{p}$ < 0.001) when compared with non-involved school children. Subgroup analyses suggest that pure victims ($\textit{Q}$ = 6.77; $\textit{p}$ < 0.01) and bully-victims ($\textit{Q}$ = 8.01; $\textit{p}$ < 0.01) are significantly more likely to carry a weapon inside than outside the school, thus rendering support to the ‘vulnerability/self-protection’ hypothesis. Pure bullies have the same odds of carrying a weapon inside and outside the school context ($\textit{Q}$ = 0.60; $\textit{p}$ = 0.44), supporting a persistent antisocial personality theoretical framework. Implications for policy and practice arising from our results are discussed

A Longitudinal Study on Stability and Transitions Among Bullying Roles.

Trajectories of stability and change in bullying roles were examined through a longitudinal prospective study of 916 school students followed up biannually from age 11 to 17. Perpetrators and victims had relatively stable trajectories with most of the children remaining in the same role over time or becoming uninvolved. Bully/victim was the most unstable role with frequent transitions to perpetrators or victims. Developmental change in bullying roles was found with a decrease in physical forms over time in bullies and victims but with persistently high perpetration and victimization in bully/victims. These findings open new horizons in research and practice related to bullying and can be useful for its early detection or design of targeted interventions