School based violence prevention programs: systematic review of secondary prevention trials

JA Mytton, C DiGuiseppi, DA Gough, Rodney Taylor, S Logan

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    91 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    OBJECTIVE: To quantify the effectiveness of school-based violence prevention programs for children identified as at risk for aggressive behavior. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Electronic databases and bibliographies were systematically searched and authors and organizations were contacted to identify randomized controlled trials. Standardized, weighted mean effect sizes were assessed by meta-analysis. SETTING: Elementary, middle, and high schools. PARTICIPANTS: Children at risk for aggressive behavior. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Violent injuries, observed or reported aggressive or violent behaviors, and school or agency responses to aggressive behaviors. RESULTS: Of the 44 trials identified, none reported data on violent injuries. For the 28 trials that assessed aggressive behaviors, the pooled difference between study groups was -0.36 (95% confidence interval, -0.54 to -0.19) in favor of a reduction in aggression with intervention. For the 9 trials that reported data on school or agency responses to aggression, the pooled difference was -0.59 (95% confidence interval, -1.18 to 0.01). Subgroup analyses suggested greater effectiveness in older students and when administered to mixed-sex groups rather than to boys alone. CONCLUSIONS: School-based violence prevention programs may produce reductions in aggressive and violent behaviors in children who already exhibit such behavior. These results, however, need to be confirmed in large, high-quality trials.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)752-762
    Number of pages11
    JournalArchives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine
    Volume156
    Publication statusPublished - 31 Dec 2002

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'School based violence prevention programs: systematic review of secondary prevention trials'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this