ArticleAmerican journal of preventive medicine2026
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Expansion and Risk of Bullying Among Adolescents.
Article in American journal of preventive medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this study was to examine the associations between state-level expansion of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program eligibility and adolescent bullying.
methodsThis cross-sectional ecologic study used data from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Policy Database and the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (2013-2021) in 41 states. Log-binomial regression compared the risk of any bullying, school bullying, and electronic bullying among adolescents (Grades 9-12) in states that had both broad-based categorical eligibility policies to expand Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program eligibility (i.e., asset test eliminated and income limit increased) and the asset test eliminated only with the risk among adolescents in states with neither policy.
resultsIn primary analyses (2013-2019), including 645,244 adolescents, those in states with both broad-based categorical eligibility policies had lower risk of experiencing any bullying (RR=0.87, 95% CI=0.84, 0.89), school bullying (RR=0.86, 95% CI=0.83, 0.89), and electronic bullying (RR=0.85, 95% CI=0.82, 0.88) than adolescents in states with neither policy. Similarly, adolescents in states with the asset test eliminated only had lower risk of experiencing any bullying, school bullying, and electronic bullying than adolescents in states with neither policy. Secondary analyses that included 2021, a COVID-19 pandemic year, showed that adolescents in states with both policies had lower risk of experiencing each type of bullying, whereas adolescents in states with the asset test eliminated only had lower risk of experiencing electronic bullying, than adolescents in states with neither policy.
conclusionsState broad-based categorical eligibility policies were associated with a lower risk of adolescent bullying. Results suggest that expanding Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program eligibility, including through state broad-based categorical eligibility policies, may contribute to reductions in bullying.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.