Dataset Information

Assessment of School Anti-Bullying Interventions: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Bullying is a prevalent and modifiable risk factor for mental health disorders. Although previous studies have supported the effectiveness of anti-bullying programs; their population impact and the association of specific moderators with outcomes are still unclear.

Objective

To assess the effectiveness of school anti-bullying interventions, their population impact, and the association between moderator variables and outcomes.

Data sources

A search of Ovid MEDLINE, ERIC, and PsycInfo databases was conducted using 3 sets of search terms to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing anti-bullying interventions published from database inception through February 2020. A manual search of reference lists of articles included in previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses was also performed.

Study selection

The initial literature search yielded 34 798 studies. Included in the study were articles that (1) assessed bullying at school; (2) assessed the effectiveness of an anti-bullying program; (3) had an RCT design; (4) reported results; and (5) were published in English. Of 16 707 studies identified, 371 met the criteria for review of full-text articles; 77 RCTs were identified that reported data allowing calculation of effect sizes (ESs). Of these, 69 independent trials were included in the final meta-analysis database.

Data extraction and synthesis

Random-effects and meta-regression models were used to derive Cohen d values with pooled 95% CIs as estimates of ES and to test associations between moderator variables and ES estimates. Population impact number (PIN), defined as the number of children in the total population for whom 1 event may be prevented by an intervention, was used as an estimate of the population impact of universal interventions targeting all students, regardless of individual risk.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcomes are the effectiveness (measured by ES) and the population impact (measured by the PIN) of anti-bullying interventions on the following 8 variable categories: overall bullying, bullying perpetration, bullying exposure, cyberbullying, attitudes that discourage bullying, attitudes that encourage bullying, mental health problems (eg, anxiety and depression), and school climate as well as the assessment of potential assocations between trial or intervention characteristics and outcomes.

Results

This study included 77 samples from 69 RCTs (111 659 participants [56 511 in the intervention group and 55 148 in the control group]). The weighted mean (range) age of participants in the intervention group was 11.1 (4-17) years and 10.8 (4-17) years in the control group. The weighted mean (range) proportion of female participants in the intervention group was 49.9% (0%-100%) and 50.5% (0%-100%) in the control group. Anti-bullying interventions were efficacious in reducing bullying (ES, -0.150; 95% CI, -0.191 to -0.109) and improving mental health problems (ES, -0.205; 95% CI, -0.277 to -0.133) at study end point, with PINs for universal interventions that target the total student population of 147 (95% CI, 113-213) and 107 (95% CI, 73-173), respectively. Duration of intervention was not statistically significantly associated with intervention effectiveness (mean [range] duration of interventions, 29.4 [1 to 144] weeks). The effectiveness of anti-bullying programs did not diminish over time during follow-up (mean [range] follow-up, 30.9 [2-104] weeks).

Conclusions and relevance

Despite the small ESs and some regional differences in effectiveness, the population impact of school anti-bullying interventions appeared to be substantial. Better designed trials that assess optimal intervention timing and duration are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Fraguas D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7607493 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe dropout rate is an important determinant of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and should be carefully controlled. This study explored the current dropout rate in studies of Korean medicine (KM) interventions by systematic evaluation of RCTs conducted in the past 10 years.MethodsThree clinical trial registries (Clinical Research Information Service, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched to identify RCT protocols for KM interventions, such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, moxibustion, or cupping, and studies of mixed interventions, registered in Korea from 2009 to 2019. The PubMed, Embase, and OASIS databases were searched for the full reports of these RCTs, including published journal articles and theses. Dropout rates and the reasons for dropping out were analyzed in each report. The risk of bias in each of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The risk difference for dropping out between the treatment and control groups was calculated with the 95% confidence interval in a random effects model.ResultsForty-nine published studies were included in the review. The median dropout rate was 10% in the treatment group (interquartile range 6.7%, 17.0%) and 14% in the control group (interquartile range 5.4%, 16.3%) and was highest in acupuncture studies (12%), followed by herbal medicine (10%), moxibustion (8%), and cupping (7%). Loss to follow-up was the most common reason for dropping out. The risk difference for dropping out between the intervention and control groups was estimated to be 0.01 (95% confidence interval - 0.02, 0.03) in KM intervention studies.ConclusionsThis review found no significant difference in the dropout rate between studies according to the type of KM intervention. We recommend allowance for a minimum dropout rate of 15% in future RCTs of KM interventions.Review protocol registrationPROSPERO CRD42020141011.

Project description:ImportanceRecent estimates suggest that more than 50% of all deaths worldwide are currently attributable to inflammation-related diseases. Psychosocial interventions may represent a potentially useful strategy for addressing this global public health problem, but which types of interventions reliably improve immune system function, under what conditions, and for whom are unknown.ObjectiveTo address this issue, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which we estimated associations between 8 different psychosocial interventions and 7 markers of immune system function, and examined 9 potential moderating factors.Data sourcesPubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched from February 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018, for all relevant RCTs published through December 31, 2018.Study selectionEligible RCTs included a psychosocial intervention, immune outcome, and preintervention and postintervention immunologic assessments. Studies were independently examined by 2 investigators. Of 4621 studies identified, 62 were eligible and 56 included.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted and analyzed from January 1, 2019, to July 29, 2019. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline was followed. Data were extracted by 2 investigators who were blind to study hypotheses and analyses, and were then analyzed using robust variance estimation. Analysis included 8 psychosocial interventions (behavior therapy, cognitive therapy, cognitive behavior therapy [CBT], CBT plus additive treatment or mode of delivery that augmented the CBT, bereavement or supportive therapy, multiple or combined interventions, other psychotherapy, and psychoeducation), 7 immune outcomes (proinflammatory cytokine or marker levels, anti-inflammatory cytokine levels, antibody levels, immune cell counts, natural killer cell activity, viral load, and other immune outcomes), and 9 moderating factors (intervention type, intervention format, intervention length, immune marker type, basal vs stimulated markers, immune marker measurement timing, disease state or reason for treatment, age, and sex).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary a priori outcomes were pretest-posttest-control (ppc) group effect sizes (ppc g) for the 7 immunologic outcomes investigated.ResultsAcross 56 RCTs and 4060 participants, psychosocial interventions were associated with enhanced immune system function (ppc g = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.21-0.40; t50.9 = 6.22; P < .001). Overall, being randomly assigned to a psychosocial intervention condition vs a control condition was associated with a 14.7% (95% CI, 5.7%-23.8%) improvement in beneficial immune system function and an 18.0% (95% CI, 7.2%-28.8%) decrease in harmful immune system function over time. These associations persisted for at least 6 months following treatment and were robust across age, sex, and intervention duration. These associations were most reliable for CBT (ppc g = 0.33, 95% CI, 0.19-0.47; t27.2 = 4.82; P < .001) and multiple or combined interventions (ppc g = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.17-0.88; t5.7 = 3.63; P = .01), and for studies that assessed proinflammatory cytokines or markers (ppc g = 0.33, 95% CI, 0.19-0.48; t25.6 = 4.70; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that psychosocial interventions are reliably associated with enhanced immune system function and may therefore represent a viable strategy for improving immune-related health.

Project description:BackgroundAn increasing number of patients have received prophylactic or therapeutic oral anticoagulants (OACs) for thromboembolic complications of diseases. The use of OACs is associated with both clinical benefits and risks. Considering the challenges imposed by this class of drugs, as well as the enormous progress made in portable device technology, it is possible that technology-based interventions may improve clinical benefits for patients and optimize anticoagulation management.ObjectiveThis study was designed to comprehensively evaluate the role of technology-based interventions in the management of OACs.MethodsWe searched 6 databases-PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Scopus, and PsycINFO-to retrieve relevant studies published as of November 1, 2019, to evaluate the effect of technology-based interventions on oral anticoagulation management. RevMan (version 5.3; Cochrane) software was used to evaluate and analyze clinical outcomes. The methodological quality of studies was assessed by the Cochrane risk of bias tool.ResultsA total of 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected for analysis. They reported data for 2218 patients (1110 patients in the intervention groups and 1108 patients in the control groups). A meta-analysis was performed on the effectiveness and safety data reported in the RCTs. Technology-based interventions significantly improved the effectiveness of oral anticoagulation management (mean difference [MD]=6.07; 95% CI 0.84-11.30; I2=72%; P=.02). The safety of oral anticoagulation management was also improved, but the results were not statistically significant. Bleeding events were reduced (major bleeding events MD=1.02; 95% CI 0.78-1.32; I2=0%; P=.90; minor bleeding events MD=1.06, 95% CI 0.77-1.44; I2=41%; P=.73) and thromboembolism events were reduced (MD=0.71; 95% CI 0.49-1.01; I2=0%; P=.06). In general, patients were more satisfied with technology-based interventions, which could also improve their knowledge of anticoagulation management, improve their quality of life, and reduce mortality and hospitalization events.ConclusionsUsing technology to manage OACs can improve the effectiveness and safety of oral anticoagulation management, result in higher patient satisfaction, and allow greater understanding of anticoagulation.

Project description:ImportanceMortality is a common outcome in trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Controversy exists regarding whether all-cause mortality or cardiac mortality is preferred as a study end point, because noncardiac mortality should be unrelated to the treatment.ObjectiveTo evaluate the difference in all-cause and cause-specific mortality in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing PCI with CABG for the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease.Data sourcesMEDLINE (1946 to the present), Embase (1974 to the present), and the Cochrane Library (1992 to the present) databases were searched on November 24, 2019. Reference lists of included articles were also searched, and additional studies were included if appropriate.Study selectionArticles were considered for inclusion if they were in English, were RCTs comparing PCI with drug-eluting or bare-metal stents and CABG for the treatment of coronary artery disease, and reported mortality and/or cause-specific mortality. Trials of PCI involving angioplasty without stenting were excluded. For each included trial, the publication with the longest follow-up duration for each outcome was selected.Data extraction and synthesisFor data extraction, all studies were reviewed by 2 independent investigators, and disagreements were resolved by a third investigator in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline. Data were pooled using fixed- and random-effects models.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were all-cause and cause-specific (cardiac vs noncardiac) mortality. Subgroup analyses were performed for PCI trials using drug-eluting vs bare-metal stents and for trials involving patients with left main disease.ResultsTwenty-three unique trials were included involving 13 620 unique patients (6829 undergoing PCI and 6791 undergoing CABG; men, 39.9%-99.0% of study populations; mean age range, 60.0-71.0 years). The weighted mean (SD) follow-up was 5.3 (3.6) years. Compared with CABG, PCI was associated with a higher rate of all-cause (incidence rate ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05-1.29) and cardiac (incidence rate ratio, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.05-1.45) mortality but also noncardiac mortality (incidence rate ratio, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.00-1.41).Conclusions and relevancePercutaneous coronary intervention was associated with higher all-cause, cardiac, and noncardiac mortality compared with CABG at 5 years. The significantly higher noncardiac mortality associated with PCI suggests that even noncardiac deaths after PCI may be procedure related and supports the use of all-cause mortality as the end point for myocardial revascularization trials.