Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preference-based health-related quality of life among victims of bullying

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

No previous study has estimated the association between bullying and preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (“utility”), knowledge of which may be used for cost-effectiveness studies of interventions designed to prevent bullying. Therefore, the aim of the study was to estimate preference-based HRQoL among victims of bullying compared to non-victims.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey data collection among Swedish adolescents aged 15–17 years in the first year of upper secondary school was conducted in the city of Gothenburg in Sweden (N = 758). Preference-based HRQoL was estimated with the SF-6D. Regression analyses were conducted to adjust for some individual-level background variable.

Results

Mean preference-based health-related quality of life scores were 0.77 and 0.71 for non-victims and victims of bullying, respectively. The difference of 0.06 points was statistically significant (p < 0.05) and robust to inclusion of gender, age, and parental immigrant status.

Conclusions

The preference-based HRQoL estimates in this study may be used as an upper bound in economic evaluations of bullying prevention interventions, facilitating a comparison between costs and quality-adjusted life-years.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hawker, D. S. J., & Boulton, M. J. (2000). Twenty years’ research on peer victimization and psychosocia maladjustment: A meta-analytic review of cross-sectional studies. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(4), 441–455.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Takizawa, R., Maughan, B., & Arseneault, L. (2014). Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(7), 777–784.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Frisén, A., & Bjarnelind, S. (2010). Health-related quality of life and bullying in adolescence. Acta Paediatrica, 99(4), 597–603.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Wilkins-Shurmer, A., O’Callaghan, M., Najman, J., Bor, W., Williams, G., & Anderson, M. (2003). Association of bullying with adolescent health-related quality of life. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 39(6), 436–441.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Rigby, K., & Smith, P. K. (2011). Is school bullying really on the rise? Social Psychology of Education, 14(4), 441–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Currie, C., Zanotti, C., Morgan, A., Currie, D., de Looze, M., Roberts, C., Samdal, O., Smith, O., & Barnekow, V. (2012). Social determinants of health and well-being among young people : Health Behaviour in School-Aged Children (HBSC) study : International report from the 2009/2010 survey. (No. 9289014237). Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

  7. Sundell, K., & Forster, M. (2005). En grund för att växa i Gränslös utmaning—alkoholpolitik i ny tid [A foundation for growth in Limitless challenge-alcohol policy in the new era] I: Gränslös utmaning [Limitless challange] (SOU 2005:25) (appendix 8). Stockholm.

  8. Flygare, E., Gill, P. E., & Johansson, B. (2013). Lessons from a concurrent evaluation of eight antibullying programs used in Sweden. American Journal of Evaluation, 34(2), 170–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ttofi, M., Farrington, D., & Baldry, A. (2008). Effectiveness of programmes to reduce school bullying—A systematic review. Stockholm: The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention.

    Google Scholar 

  10. SNAE. (2009). Kostnader för förskoleverksamhet, skolbarnsomsorg, skola och vuxenutbildning 2008: Skolverket (The Swedish National Agency for Education).

  11. Gold, M., Siegel, J., Russell, L., & Weinstein, M. (1996). Cost-effectiveness in health and medicine. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. NICE. (2004). Guide to the methods of technology appraisal.

  13. Socialstyrelsen. (2011). Nationella riktlinjer för sjukdomsförebyggande metoder 2011 - Hälsoekonomiskt underlag (Bilaga). Socialstyrelsen, Stockholm, Tillgänglig http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/nationellariktlinjerforsjukdomsforebyggandemetoder/Documents/nr-sjukdomsforebyggande-halsoekonomisktunderlag.pdf.

  14. Pliskin, J. S., Shepard, D. S., & Weinstein, M. C. (1980). Utility functions for life years and health status. Operations Research, 28, 206–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Zeckhauser, R. J., & Shepard, D. S. (1976). Where now for saving lives? Law and Contemporary Problems, 40(4), 5–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Berg, B. (2012). Sf-6d population norms. Health Economics, 21(12), 1508–1512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Burström, K., Johannesson, M., & Diderichsen, F. (2001). Swedish population health-related quality of life results using the EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 10(7), 621–635.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ladapo, J. A., Neumann, P. J., Keren, R., & Prosser, L. A. (2007). Valuing children’s health: A comparison of cost-utility analyses for adult and paediatric health interventions in the US. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(10), 817–828.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Prosser, L. A., Hammitt, J. K., & Keren, R. (2007). Measuring health preferences for use in cost-utility and cost-benefit analyses of interventions in children: Theoretical and methodological considerations. Pharmacoeconomics, 25(9), 713–726.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Petrou, S., & Kupek, E. (2009). Estimating preference-based health utilities index mark 3 utility scores for childhood conditions in England and Scotland. Medical Decision Making, 29(3), 291–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kolinski, M., & Gandeck, B. (1993). SF-36 Health survey manual and interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Brazier, J., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Torrance, G. W., Boyle, M. H., & Horwood, S. P. (1982). Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health states. Operations Research, 30(6), 1043–1069.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brooks, R. (1996). EuroQol: The current state of play. Health Policy, 37(1), 53–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus bully/victim questionnaire. Mimeo HEMIL: University of Bergen.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Rigby, K. (1999). Peer victimisation at school and the health of secondary school students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 95–104.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Basu, A., & Manca, A. (2012). Regression estimators for generic health-related quality of life and quality-adjusted life years. Medical Decision Making, 32(1), 56–69.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Drummond, M. (2001). Introducing economic and quality of life measurements into clinical studies. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 344–349.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bowes, L., Joinson, C., Wolke, D., & Lewis, G. (2015). Peer victimisation during adolescence and its impact on depression in early adulthood: Prospective cohort study in the United Kingdom. BMJ, 350, h2469.

  31. Eriksen, T. L. M., Nielsen, H. S., & Simonsen, M. (2014). Bullying in Elementary School. Journal of Human Resources, 49(4), 839–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. ISPOR. (2013). International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research: Pharmacoeconomic Guidelines around the World. http://www.ispor.org/peguidelines/index.asp.

  33. Owen, L., Morgan, A., Fischer, A., Ellis, S., Hoy, A., & Kelly, M. P. (2012). The cost-effectiveness of public health interventions. Journal of Public Health, 34(1), 37–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lawson, K. D., Kearns, A., Petticrew, M., & Fenwick, E. A. L. (2013). Investing in health: Is social housing value for money? A cost-utility analysis. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 67, 829–834.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. NICE. (2012). Methods for the development of NICE public health guidance (third edition). http://publications.nice.org.uk/methods-for-the-development-of-nice-public-health-guidance-third-edition-pmg4/incorporating-health-economics.

  36. Richardson, J., Iezzi, A., & Khan, M. (2015). Why do multi-attribute utility instruments produce different utilities: The relative importance of the descriptive systems, scale and ‘micro-utility’ effects. Quality of Life Research, 24, 2045–2053.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. van den Berg, B. (2012). Sf-6d population norms. Health Economics, 21(12), 1508–1512.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Card, N., & Hodges, E. (2008). Peer victimization among schoolchildren: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23(4), 451–461.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sullivan, P. W., & Ghushchyan, V. (2006). Preference-based EQ-5D index scores for chronic conditions in the United States. Medical Decision Making, 26(4), 410–420.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors, Linda Beckman, Mikael Svensson, and Ann Frisén, declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

    Linda Beckman

  2. Department of Public Health, Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

    Linda Beckman

  3. Department of Economics, Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden

    Mikael Svensson

  4. Health Metrics, The Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Mikael Svensson

  5. Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden

    Ann Frisén

Authors
  1. Linda Beckman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mikael Svensson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ann Frisén
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Linda Beckman.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beckman, L., Svensson, M. & Frisén, A. Preference-based health-related quality of life among victims of bullying. Qual Life Res 25, 303–309 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1101-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1101-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation