SynthesisBMC medicine2026
Effectiveness of bullying prevention-associated interventions among children and adolescents: an umbrella review of systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBullying represents a critical global health concern among children and adolescents, emphasizing an urgent need for effective prevention interventions. Current meta-analyses frequently focus on single prevention interventions or outcomes, limiting the generalizability of findings for cross-intervention comparisons. We aimed to perform an umbrella review to provide an overview of the effectiveness of bullying prevention interventions.
methodsPotential literature was searched from PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and EBSCO from their respective inception to October 22, 2024. Three reviewers independently selected meta-analysis of bullying prevention intervention that reported any type of prevention intervention and assessed outcomes in children and adolescents. Following PRISMA guidelines, three reviewers independently extracted data and evaluated study quality using AMSTAR-2. All effect estimates were converted to Cohen's d for cross-domain comparisons.
results4740 studies were identified with 30 meta-analyses included. Studies reporting statistical significance all demonstrated beneficial effects of bullying prevention interventions. Included meta-analyses evaluated 17 distinct prevention interventions in alleviating bullying via assessment on three main outcomes with 49 distinct sub-outcomes, i.e., behavior change (36 sub-outcomes, the most frequent target), mental health (9 sub-outcomes), and attitude change (4 sub-outcomes). 30 studies were categorized into five categories based on the leading role of prevention interventions: family-based (n = 2), school-based (n = 10), community-based (n = 2), healthcare-based (n = 5), and collaborative (n = 11). Cohen's d values ranged from -0.99 to 1.14, with the music-based intervention exhibiting the largest observed point estimate (Cohen's d = -0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.42 to -0.56), which was also the largest among interventions targeting behavior change. Martial arts presented largest observed point estimate among collaborative prevention interventions, while digital health intervention, anti-aggression program, and parent-related intervention showed the largest observed point estimates among community-based, school-based, and family-based prevention interventions, respectively. For mental health, sports intervention exhibited the largest observed point estimate. And for attitude change, anti-bullying intervention presented the largest estimate, consistent with results from RCT-only subgroup.
conclusionsBullying prevention interventions may be associated with improvements in positive behavior change, attitude change, and mental health, with substantial variations in effectiveness. These findings regarding comparative efficacy may inform the strategic selection of preventive interventions in future evaluation and implementation efforts. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024601712.
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.