Page 579

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

Effective School Bullying Prevention Strategies: A Thematic Review

Abd Hadi Mustaffa,

Mohd Anuar Sulaiman,

Norarbaiyah Yaacob,

Farhanah Mohd Noor

Faculty of Business and Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Cawangan Melaka

2,3,4

Faculty of Business Management and Professional Studies, Management and Science University,

Selangor

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.924ILEIID0059

Received: 23 September 2025; Accepted: 30 September 2025; Published: 31 October 2025

ABSTRACT

School bullying remains a persistent challenge that affects student well-being, academic performance, and the

overall learning environment. Despite the increasing number of intervention programs worldwide, questions

remain about the key determinants that shape their effectiveness. This study aimed to identify and thematise

the factors that influence the success of school bullying prevention strategies. Guided by the PRISMA

protocol, 19 peer-reviewed articles were identified, screened, and systematically synthesised using a thematic

review approach. The analysis revealed six key strategies that contribute to effective prevention: fostering a

favourable school climate, ensuring program fidelity, strengthening teacher efficacy, promoting socioemotional

regulation, increasing peer support, and incorporating parental involvement. These findings underscore the

importance of a holistic, multi-stakeholder approach in designing and implementing interventions.

Keywords: school bullying, prevention strategies, thematic review

INTRODUCTION

Bullying in schools remains a critical issue that disrupts student well-being, hinders academic engagement, and

undermines the overall learning environment (Fauzan & Sulaeman, 2024). Victims often experience

psychological stress, lowered self-esteem, and disengagement in school activities, while peers and teachers are

also affected by the hostile school climate that results (Martinot et al., 2020; González Moreno & Molero

Jurado, 2023). Although a growing body of research has examined various anti-bullying approaches—

including policy interventions, professional development for teachers, and peer support programs—existing

evidence is still fragmented, with findings scattered across various contexts and methodological designs

(Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Merchie et al., 2018; Martinot et al., 2020). This lack of integration makes it

difficult for educators and policymakers to determine which measures are the most effective. This study

examines the key factors that contribute to the effectiveness of prevention.

The emerging evidence shows an increase in bullying in schools both globally and within Malaysia, raising

concerns about the effectiveness of existing prevention strategies. UNICEF (2025) highlights that many

schools lack systematic data collection, comprehensive policies addressing all forms of bullying—including

cyberbullying—and secure, confidential reporting mechanisms for students. In Malaysia, the Human Rights

Commission (SUHAKAM) has described this situation as urgent, calling for more vigorous enforcement of

anti-bullying measures following several high-profile cases that have resulted in physical injury and

psychological trauma among students (SUHAKAM, 2025). These developments emphasise the urgent need for

research that combines existing evidence and identifies factors contributing to more effective school bullying

prevention.

Although reviews and meta-analyses have shed light on bullying prevention, many questions remain about

their efficiency. For instance, studies have thoroughly assessed teacher training (Panosso et al., 2023) and

teachers’ self-efficacy in intervention (Fischer et al., 2021). Still, they show fragmented approaches and a lack

Page 580

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

of integration across all parties involved. Recent studies by Gaffney et al. (2019) and Silva et al. (2018)

demonstrate that programs aimed at reducing bullying are implemented; however, they exhibit inconsistencies

across contexts, limited descriptions of program components, and non-significant or uneven impacts. Hence,

the gaps inspire authors to conduct this study. The objective of the study is to identify and thematise the

effectiveness of school bullying prevention strategies. The significance of the study lies in its capacity to

enhance both academic research and practical application by demonstrating the collaborative roles of all

parties involved in effective bullying prevention, while also informing policymakers and practitioners on how

to reduce bullying rates.

METHODOLOGY

The primary objective of this review is to analyse the insights derived from previous findings related to school

bullying prevention strategies. The review was specifically directed by one main research question using the

PICO method. The P stands for ‘population’, which refers to schools; I represent ‘interest’, indicating the

determinants that influence effectiveness; and Co signifies ‘context’, referring to the school environment.

Hence, the combination of three components generates this main research question: “What are the key

determinants that influence the effectiveness of school bullying prevention strategies?”

This research employed a thematic review methodology. A thematic review approach was chosen because the

goal of this study was to identify and conceptualise key strategies across diverse contexts rather than

statistically aggregate effect sizes (Thomas & Harden, 2008). This method allows for capturing patterns,

meanings, and contextual implications that might be lost in a pure qualitative synthesis (Lim, 2025; Tracy,

2024). It is therefore well suited to provide a holistic understanding of the complex, multi stakeholder

dynamics in bullying prevention. This thematic review utilising the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol (Moher et al., 2009) to systematically identify and select

pertinent studies (refer to Figure 1). The adopted search strategy utilised the subsequent string: TITLE (“school

bully*”) AND TITLE (“prevent*” OR “avoid” OR “block*” OR “deterrence” OR “hindrance” OR

“intervention”), resulting in 89 documents. During the screening phase, articles were filtered based on

publication year (2016-2025), document type (journal articles only), and language (English), resulting in a

total of 33 articles. A comprehensive eligibility assessment was conducted, resulting in the exclusion of studies

that focused solely on digital bullying, duplicated existing gaps, or failed to address the research question. A

total of 19 studies were ultimately included in the analysis.

Figure 1: Process of searching and selecting the focal literature via the PRISMA protocol

Page 581

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

All included studies were peer-reviewed journal articles, ensuring a baseline level of scholarly rigour (Menon

et al., 2022). While a formal quality scoring tool such as a risk of bias assessment was not applied, given that

the focus was on synthesising themes rather than evaluating effect sizes. The consistency of peer-reviewed

sources provides confidence in the robustness of the thematic patterns identified (Braun & Clarke, 2023).

Then, the synthesis process was conducted through a thematic review, which served as the primary

methodology of the study. A two-round coding procedure was implemented. The first round was categorised by

the involved parties (e.g., teachers, students, families, or schools), while the subsequent round identified

determinants based on the strategies and conditions that facilitated effective prevention. This thematic review

is transparent because it mapped, clustered, and interpreted recurring patterns, resulting in the identification of

key determinants for school bullying prevention strategies.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Results

Table 1 presents the distribution of included studies across countries. The findings indicate that China

contributed the highest number of studies (4), followed by the United States (3) and South Korea (2).

Collectively, these three countries account for the majority of the literature on school bullying prevention,

underscoring their central role in shaping current scholarly debates. However, contributions from other

regions, including Italy and the United Kingdom, as well as several countries with only a single study each,

remain scattered and less frequent. This uneven distribution highlights the dominance of research from a few

countries, raising questions about the generalizability of the identified determinants of effective school

bullying prevention across diverse cultural and institutional settings.

Table 1: Country distribution of included studies

Country

Count

References

China

Wang et al. (2024); Tian et al. (2023); Yu & Bikar (2023); Li et al. (2017)

United States

Bowser et al. (2020); Farley (2018); Gerlinger & Wo (2016)

South Korea

Han et al. (2021); Lee et al. (2021)

Italy

Acquadro Maran et al. (2017); Begotti et al. (2017)

United Kingdom

Tzani-Pepelasi et al. (2019); Lester et al. (2017)

Australia

Cross et al. (2021)

South Africa

Adewoye & Du Plessis (2021)

Kosovo

Arënliu et al. (2020)

Spain

Martínez-Sánchez et al. (2019)

Netherlands

Garandeau et al. (2016)

Turkey

Albayrak et al. (2016)

Table 2 summarises the distribution of methodologies employed across the selected studies. The majority of

the studies used a quantitative approach (12 studies). This dominance indicates a preference for measurable

outcomes and generalisable findings within the field. The mixed-methods approach appears less common, with

a total of five studies, but demonstrates a growing recognition of the value of integrating statistical data with

contextual insights. In contrast, only two studies relied solely on qualitative approaches.

Table 2: Distribution of Methodology

Methodology

Count

References

Quantitative

Wang et al. (2024); Tian et al. (2023); Yu & Bikar (2023); Han et al. (2021);

Lee et al. (2021); Bowser et al. (2020); Arënliu et al. (2020); Martínez-

Page 582

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

Sánchez et al. (2019); Li et al. (2017); Begotti et al. (2017); Gerlinger & Wo

(2016); Albayrak et al. (2016)

Qualitative

Acquadro Maran et al. (2017); Farley (2018)

Mixed Method

Cross et al. (2021); Adewoye & Du Plessis (2021); Tzani-Pepelasi et al.

(2019); Lester et al. (2017); Garandeau et al. (2016)

Table 3 summarises the themes emerging from the first-round analysis, focusing on the main parties engaged

in bullying prevention efforts. The majority of studies (11) emphasised the role of the school as an institution,

reflecting its central position in implementing structured policies, programs, and monitoring systems. Teachers

were the next most frequently identified group (5 studies), reflecting their roles as frontline professionals in

detecting, addressing, and shaping classroom environments that discourage bullying. Students themselves were

the focus of three studies, highlighting the importance of empowering young people as active participants in

prevention efforts rather than merely as recipients of interventions. Additionally, families have also been

mentioned in one study, suggesting that the parental and household dimension of bullying prevention remains

underexplored.

Table 3: Result on First Round Theme (Parties Involved)

Theme

Count

References

School

Tian et al. (2023); Cross et al. (2021); Han et al. (2021); Bowser et al.

(2020); Arënliu et al. (2020); Tzani-Pepelasi et al. (2019); Martínez-Sánchez

et al. (2019); Li et al. (2017); Lester et al. (2017); Gerlinger & Wo (2016);

Albayrak et al. (2016)

Teacher

Yu & Bikar (2023); Farley (2018); Acquadro Maran et al. (2017); Begotti et

al. (2017); Garandeau et al. (2016)

Students

Wang et al. (2024); Adewoye & Du Plessis (2021); Lee et al. (2021)

Family

Lester et al. (2017)

Thematic Results on Effective School Bullying Prevention Strategies

A review of 19 selected studies identified six primary themes related to effective school bullying prevention

strategies. Themes were identified through a two-round thematic review process, with the first-round

categorising broader themes and the second round refining them into more specific strategies. The six themes

are school climate, program fidelity, teacher efficacy, peer support, socioemotional regulation, and parental

involvement. Those themes underscore the complex dimension of prevention. They collectively illustrate, as

shown in Table 4, that effective strategies rely not on a single intervention but on the integration of

institutional, interpersonal, and individual factors.

Table 4: Results on Second Round Theme (Effective Bullying Prevention Strategies)

Theme

Count

References

School climate

Tian et al. (2023); Cross et al. (2021); Martínez-Sánchez et al. (2019); Li et

al. (2017); Gerlinger & Wo (2016)

Program Fidelity

Tian et al. (2023); Cross et al. (2021); Han et al. (2021); Bowser et al.

(2020); Arënliu et al. (2020); Martínez-Sánchez et al. (2019); Albayrak et al.

(2016)

Teacher Efficacy

Yu & Bikar (2023); Farley (2018); Li et al. (2017); Acquadro Maran et al.

(2017); Begotti et al. (2017); Garandeau et al. (2016)

Peer support

Wang et al. (2024); Han et al. (2021); Arënliu et al. (2020); Tzani-Pepelasi et

Page 583

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

al. (2019)

Socioemotional

Regulation

Wang et al. (2024); Han et al. (2021); Adewoye & Du Plessis (2021); Lee et

al. (2021); Begotti et al. (2017); Garandeau et al. (2016)

Parental

Involvement

Lester et al. (2017)

School Climate

A positive and authoritative school climate consistently serves as a key factor in determining the effectiveness

of prevention efforts. Gerlinger & Wo (2016) demonstrated that authoritative disciplinary approaches resulted

in lower bullying rates compared to security-driven measures. Tian et al. (2023) found that schools

implementing structured bullying disposal processes saw notable decreases in victimisation rates. On the other

hand, Cross et al. (2021) emphasised that a whole-school commitment, especially when backed by school

counsellors, is crucial for sustaining impact. These selected findings indicated that climates characterised by

trust, fairness, and shared responsibility are essential for the effectiveness of prevention strategies.

Program Fidelity

The fidelity of implementation of anti-bullying programmes is equally critical. Bowser et al. (2020)

demonstrated that the Wisconsin Bullying Prevention Program Assessment Tool helped schools identify

weaknesses and implement effective improvements. Meanwhile, Han et al. (2021) showed in South Korea that

the consistent implementation of the Youth Police Academy Program improved empathy and anti-bullying

attitudes among students. In contrast, research by Tian et al. (2023) indicated that inconsistent application of

interventions resulted in negligible impacts. The findings suggested that program fidelity, achieved through

faithful implementation and ongoing monitoring, is critical to the success or failure of prevention efforts.

Teacher Efficacy

Teacher efficacy was identified as a critical determinant influencing prevention outcomes. Yu & Bikar (2023)

identified that teachers’ positive attitudes and effective classroom management skills are significant predictors

of reduced aggression and victimisation levels. Acquadro Maran et al. (2017) and Begotti et al. (2017) found

that in-service teachers with high self-efficacy were more likely to intervene than pre-service teachers or those

with an external locus of control. Farley (2018) highlighted the importance of institutional support, particularly

from administrators, in enhancing teachers’ confidence. Hence, it highlights that this approach depends on both

the teacher’s commitment and systematic structures that empower teachers to act confidently.

Peer Support

Peer support initiatives emerged as an effective strategy for mitigating bullying. Tzani-Pepelasi et al. (2019)

demonstrated that the Buddy Approach promotes friendship and protection, yielding advantages for both

mentors and mentees. Arënliu et al. (2020) demonstrated in Kosovo that even ultra-short iterations of the ViSC

Social Competence Program effectively reduced bullying rates, underscoring the efficiency of scalable peer-

led incentives. Wang et al. (2024) noted that bystander interventions are more probable when students perceive

emotional support from their peers. These examples demonstrate that prevention is effective not only through

top-down policies but also through peer-driven initiatives in which students collaboratively uphold safe and

inclusive norms.

Socioemotional Regulation

Socioemotional regulation emerged as a consistent theme across various interventions. Adewoye & Du Plessis

(2021) demonstrated that cognitive restructuring helps bystanders manage negative emotions, leading to more

constructive reactions. Lee et al. (2021) showed that bullying prevention camps effectively decreased

depression and impulsivity in perpetrators, while also enhancing self-esteem. Garandeau et al. (2016)

demonstrated that empathy arousal techniques prompted bullies to re-evaluate their actions. These strategies,

Page 584

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

when integrated with comprehensive prevention programs, improved resilience and prosocial coping,

demonstrating that sustained effectiveness relies on addressing the emotional foundations of bullying

behaviour.

Parental Involvement

Finally, parental involvement was an understudied but important factor. The intervention program increased

parent-child communication, with mothers providing prosocial guidance (Lester et al., 2017). However, the

same study found that dads sometimes supported retaliation, illustrating the complexity of family dynamics.

Although less research has been conducted on this issue, sustainable prevention requires congruence between

school and home.

DISCUSSION

Schools and students are frequently regarded as the focal point in designing and implementing effective

bullying prevention strategies, as the school environment is the primary setting where bullying occurs and

where interventions can be systematically applied. Students spend the majority of their daily lives within the

school context, making it the most influential environment for shaping behaviour and social interactions.

Positioning students at the centre of prevention efforts is crucial, as they are not only the most affected

stakeholders but also active participants in fostering positive peer relationships. Empowering them through

awareness programs, peer mentoring, and leadership initiatives enhances their ability to recognise bullying

behaviours, cultivate empathy, and promote a culture of respect and inclusivity.

Teachers and parents, in turn, play a pivotal role in the effectiveness of bullying prevention strategies, as they

provide consistent guidance, supervision, and reinforcement of positive behaviours across both school and

home settings. Teachers serve as primary observers capable of identifying early warning signs, intervening

promptly, and modelling respectful communication in classroom environments. Their active involvement in

implementing anti-bullying programs creates a strong protective framework within the school ecosystem.

Parents, on the other hand, reinforce these efforts by shaping children’s values, emotional regulation, and

conflict management skills at home. When parents collaborate with schools and openly communicate with

their children, they strengthen the continuum of care and accountability. The partnership between teachers and

parents, therefore, strengthens the overall effectiveness of prevention initiatives, ensuring that positive

behavioural expectations are reinforced across both school and home environments.

From a policymaker’s perspective, comprehensive frameworks are necessary to systematically reduce bullying

rates. As designers of systematic reform, policymakers should introduce and enforce comprehensive policies

that address the root causes and long-term consequences of bullying. Policies must emphasise mandatory anti-

bullying guidelines in all schools, invest in teacher professional development, and create parental engagement

programs to address both the immediate and long-term impacts of bullying. Additionally, policies should adopt

a holistic view by integrating bullying prevention within broader agendas of student well-being, mental health,

and inclusive education. Policymakers should also allocate resources for counselling services and mental

health support, recognising the psychological impact of bullying on victims and perpetrators. Establishing

standardised accountability structures and providing adequate resources at all levels will ensure that anti-

bullying measures are sustainable and effective. Therefore, implementing proactive policies by governments

and educational institutions can cultivate safer, healthier, and more resilient school communities.

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTION

School bullying continues to pose a serious threat to student well-being and the overall sense of safety in

educational institutions. The purpose of this study is to identify and thematise the key elements of effective

bullying prevention strategies using a thematic review of 19 articles. The findings highlighted six key

strategies that influence preventive effectiveness: school climate, program fidelity, teacher efficacy,

socioemotional regulation, peer support, and parental involvement. Together, these strategies highlight the

importance of both structural interventions and relational dynamics in addressing bullying in schools.

Page 585

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

Drawing on these insights, a future model is proposed to guide empirical validation and the advancement of

the theory as per Figure 2. The six identified strategies highlighted earlier can be logically connected to the

four domains of the proposed model. Teacher efficacy and program fidelity represent key elements of

institutional mechanisms. A positive school climate reflects the role of policy and legal enforcement. Peer

support together with parental involvement contributes to community-based awareness and engagement.

Finally, socioemotional regulations align with technological and programmatic interventions that promote

student well-being. This mapping demonstrates how the thematic findings directly inform the structure of the

future model.

Despite these contributions, some limitations are evident. Parental involvement is frequently viewed as

peripheral rather than key. Most research is conducted in specialised situations that limit generalisability, and

there is an overreliance on secondary data. To fill these gaps, future research should emphasise the

involvement of parents, widen the scope of the study across cultural settings, and use longitudinal studies or

intervention-based methodologies that can track changes in preventive effectiveness over time.

Figure 2: Proposed Model for Bullying Prevention Effectiveness

Future research could implement those constructs and utilise advanced statistical techniques, such as Partial

Least Squares-Structural Equation Model (PLS-SEM), to examine both direct and indirect effects. The

expected outcome will provide policymakers with practical insights for crafting interventions that aim to create

safer and more supportive school environments.

REFERENCES

1. Acquadro Maran, D., Tirassa, M., & Begotti, T. (2017). Teachers’ intervention in school Bullying: A

qualitative analysis on italian Teachers. Frontiers in Education, 2, 36.

2. Adewoye, S. E., & Du Plessis, A. (2021). Self-debasing cognitive distortions restructuring intervention

down regulate bystanders emotional and behavioural reactions to witnessing school bullying. Qualitative

Report, 26(9), 2924–2942.

Page 586

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

3. Albayrak, S., Yildiz, A., & Erol, S. (2016). Assessing the effect of school bullying prevention programs on

reducing bullying. Children and Youth Services Review, 63, 1–9.

4. Arënliu, A., Strohmeier, D., Konjufca, J., Yanagida, T., & Burger, C. (2020). Empowering the Peer Group to

Prevent School Bullying in Kosovo: Effectiveness of a Short and Ultra-Short Version of the ViSC Social

Competence Program. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 2(1), 65–78.

5. Begotti, T., Tirassa, M., & Acquadro Maran, D. (2017). School bullying episodes: attitudes and intervention

in pre-service and in-service Italian teachers. Research Papers in Education, 32(2), 170–182.

6. Bowser, J., Bellmore, A. D., & Larson, J. D. (2020). Use and Impact of the Wisconsin Bullying Prevention

Program Assessment Tool in Addressing Middle School Bullying. International Journal of Bullying

Prevention, 2(4), 280–291.

7. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2023). Is thematic analysis used well in health psychology? A critical review of

published research, with recommendations for quality practice and reporting. Health Psychology Review,

17(4), 695–718.

8. Cross, D. S., Runions, K. C., & Pearce, N. L. (2021). Friendly schools’ bullying prevention research:

Implications for school counsellors. Journal of Psychologists and Counsellors in Schools, 31(2), 146–158.

9. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development.

Learning Policy Institute.

10. Farley, J. (2018). Teachers as obligated bystanders: Grading and relating administrator support and peer

response to teacher direct intervention in school bullying. Psychology in the Schools, 55(9), 1056–1070.

11. Fauzan, H., & Sulaeman, D. (2024). Overcoming bullying in the educational environment: prevention and

intervention strategies in schools. Journal of English Language and Education, 9(4), 12–26.

12. Fischer, S. M., John, N., & Bilz, L. (2021). Teachers’ Self-efficacy in Preventing and Intervening in School

Bullying: a Systematic Review. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 3(3), 196–212.

13. Gaffney, H., Farrington, D. P., & Ttofi, M. M. (2019). Examining the Effectiveness of School-Bullying

Intervention Programs Globally: a Meta-analysis. International Journal of Bullying Prevention, 1(1), 14–31.

14. Garandeau, C. F., Vartio, A., Poskiparta, E. H., & Salmivalli, C. (2016). School Bullies’ Intention to Change

Behavior Following Teacher Interventions: Effects of Empathy Arousal, Condemning of Bullying, and

Blaming of the Perpetrator. Prevention Science, 17(8), 1034–1043.

15. Gerlinger, J., & Wo, J. C. (2016). Preventing School Bullying: Should Schools Prioritise an Authoritative

School Discipline Approach Over Security Measures? Journal of School Violence, 15(2), 133–157.

16. González Moreno, A., & Molero Jurado, M. del M. (2023). Healthy lifestyle in adolescence: Associations

with stress, self-esteem and the roles of school violence. Healthcare, 12(1), 63.

17. Han, Y., Song, A., & Um, S. (2021). Implementation and evaluation of the Youth Police Academy school

bullying prevention program in South Korea. International Journal of Educational Research, 110.

18. Lee, J., Kim, J., & Kim, B. N. (2021). Effects of school bullying prevention camp on the adolescent

perpetrators of school violence. Journal of the Korean Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 32(2),

43–50.

19. Lester, L. J., Pearce, N. L., Waters, S. K., Barnes, A., Beatty, S. E., & Cross, D. S. (2017). Family

Involvement in a Whole-School Bullying Intervention: Mothers’ and Fathers’ Communication and Influence

with Children. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(10), 2716–2727.

20. Li, Y., Chen, P. Y., Chen, F., & Chen, Y. (2017). Preventing School Bullying: Investigation of the Link

between Anti-Bullying Strategies, Prevention Ownership, Prevention Climate, and Prevention Leadership.

Applied Psychology, 66(4), 577–598.

21. Lim, W. M. (2025). What is qualitative research? An overview and guidelines. Australasian Marketing

Journal, 33(2), 199–229.

22. Martínez-Sánchez, I., Goig-Martínez, R. M., González-González, D., & Alvarez-Rodríguez, J. (2019).

School bullying in compulsory and advanced secondary education. Determining factors in its intervention.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(5).

23. Martinot, D., Beaton, A., Tougas, F., Redersdorff, S., & Rinfret, N. (2020). Links between psychological

disengagement from school and different forms of self-esteem in the crucial period of early and mid-

adolescence. Social Psychology of Education, 23(6), 1539–1564.

24. Menon, J. M. L., Struijs, F., & Whaley, P. (2022). The methodological rigour of systematic reviews in

Page 587

www.rsisinternational.org

ILEIID 2025 | International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS)

ISSN: 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS

Special Issue | Volume IX Issue XXIV October 2025

environmental health. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 52(3), 167–187.

25. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic

reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 339(7716), 332–336.

26. Panosso, M. G., Kienen, N., & Brino, R. D. F. (2023). Teacher Training for Prevention and Management of

School Bullying Situations: A Systematic Literature Review; Treinamento de Professores para Prevenção e

Manejo de Situações de Bullying Escolar: Uma Revisão Sistemática de Literatura. Psicologia: Teoria e

Pesquisa, 39.

27. Silva, J. L. da, Oliveira, W. A. de, Zequinão, M. A., Lizzi, E. A. da S., Pereira, B. O., & Silva, M. A. I.

(2018). Results from interventions addressing social skills to reduce school bullying: A systematic review

with meta-analysis. Trends in Psychology, 26, 509–522.

28. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic

reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 45.

29. Tian, Y., Yang, J., Huang, F., Zhang, X., Wang, X., Fan, L., Du, W., & Xue, H. (2023). An Analysis of the

Association between School Bullying Prevention and Control Measures and Secondary School Students’

Bullying Behavior in Jiangsu Province. Behavioral Sciences, 13(11).

30. Tracy, S. J. (2024). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating

impact. John Wiley & Sons.

31. Tzani-Pepelasi, C., Ioannou, M., Synnott, J., & McDonnell, D. (2019). Peer Support at Schools: the Buddy

Approach as a Prevention and Intervention Strategy for School Bullying. International Journal of Bullying

Prevention, 1(2), 111–123.

32. Wang, D., Zhang, Y., Tian, H., Sun, H., Wang, K., Su, M., & Wei, Y. (2024). The relationship between being

bullied and bystander intervention in adolescent school bullying: the moderating mediation of moral

disengagement and only child status. Current Psychology, 43(22), 19617–19627.

33. Yu, S., & Bikar, S. S. (2023). Preventing school bullying: Examining the association between classroom

management, classroom climate, and relational aggression and victimisation. International Journal of

Education and Practice, 11(2), 232–243.