Associations Between Antibullying Policies and Bullying in 25 States

作者: Mark L. Hatzenbuehler , Laura Schwab-Reese , Shabbar I. Ranapurwala , Marci F. Hertz , Marizen R. Ramirez

DOI: 10.1001/JAMAPEDIATRICS.2015.2411

关键词:

摘要: IMPORTANCE: Bullying is the most widespread form of peer aggression in schools. In an effort to address school bullying, 49 states have passed antibullying statutes. Despite ubiquity these policies, there has been limited empirical examination their effectiveness reducing students' risk being bullied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate legislation bullied and cyberbullied, using data from 25 United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A cross-sectional observational study was conducted a population-based survey 63 635 adolescents grades 9 12 participating 2011 Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (September 2010-December 2011). Data on were obtained US Department Education (DOE), which commissioned systematic review state laws i n 2011. The report identified 16 key components that divided into following 4 broad categories: purpose definition law, district policy development review, (eg, responsibilities for reporting bullying incidents), additional (eg , how policies are communicated). Policy variables linked individual-level experiencing cyberbullying. Analyses between March 1, 2014, December 2014. EXPOSURE: State legislation. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Exposure cyberbullying past months. RESULTS: There substantial variation rates across states. After controlling relevant state-level confounders, students with at least 1 DOE legislative component law had 24% (95% CI, 15%-32%) reduced odds 20% 9%-29%) compared whose no components. Three individual consistently associated decreased exposure both cyberbullying: statement scope, description prohibited behaviors, requirements districts develop implement local policies. CONCLUSIONS RELEVANCE: Antibullying may represent effective intervention strategies cyberbullied Language: en

参考文章(26)
Michael J. Furlong, Gale M. Morrison, Jennifer L. Greif, Reaching an American Consensus: Reactions to the Special Issue on School Bullying. School Psychology Review. ,vol. 32, pp. 456- 470 ,(2003) , 10.1080/02796015.2003.12086212
Susan P. Limber, Mark A. Small, State laws and policies to address bullying in schools School Psychology Review. ,vol. 32, pp. 445- 456 ,(2003) , 10.1080/02796015.2003.12086211
Building Capacity to Reduce Bullying National Academies Press (US). ,(2014) , 10.17226/18762
Dan Olweus, Aggression in the schools : bullies and whipping boys Published in <b>1978</b> in Washington DC) by Hemisphere. ,(1978)
Ariana Bell, Victoria Stuart-Cassel, J. Frederick Springer, Analysis of State Bullying Laws and Policies. Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education. ,(2011)
Emma Dresler-Hawke, Dean Whitehead, The Behavioral Ecological Model as a Framework for School-Based Anti-Bullying Health Promotion Interventions. Journal of School Nursing. ,vol. 25, pp. 195- 204 ,(2009) , 10.1177/1059840509334364
D. Finkelhor, H. Turner, R. Ormrod, S. L. Hamby, Violence, abuse, and crime exposure in a national sample of children and youth. Pediatrics. ,vol. 124, pp. 1411- 1423 ,(2009) , 10.1542/PEDS.2009-0467
J. R. Harrington, M. J. Gelfand, Tightness-looseness across the 50 united states. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. ,vol. 111, pp. 7990- 7995 ,(2014) , 10.1073/PNAS.1317937111
Jorge C. Srabstein, Benjamin E. Berkman, Eugenia Pyntikova, Antibullying legislation: a public health perspective. Journal of Adolescent Health. ,vol. 42, pp. 11- 20 ,(2008) , 10.1016/J.JADOHEALTH.2007.10.007
Sander Greenland, Judea Pearl, James M Robins, Causal diagrams for epidemiologic research. Epidemiology. ,vol. 10, pp. 37- 48 ,(1999) , 10.1097/00001648-199901000-00005