Association between school bullying experience and work-related subjective well-being: A systematic review

Abstract

Objectives: Work-related subjective well-being (SWB) may be negatively affected by early-life adverse experiences, such as school bullying experience. This study aimed to identify the association between work-related SWB and school bullying experiences. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using five electronic databases to search for published observational studies from inception to May 5^th, 2022. Eligibility criteria included the original papers in English, which measured school bullying experiences and work-related SWB (eg, satisfaction, engagement). Eight researchers independently conducted screening and a full-text review. We used the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies to assess the certainty of the evidence. Narrative data were summarized. The study has been registered at UMIN-CTR (UMIN000040513). Results: A total of 6,842 studies were initially searched. We included two cross-sectional studies. Both studies were rated as high risk for bias in exposure measurements and incomplete outcome data. These studies showed conflicting results. One study reported that school bullying was negatively associated with job satisfaction among British lesbian, gay, or bisexual workers; on the other hand, another study reported that school bullying was positively associated with work engagement among Japanese workers. Conclusions: We found limited inconsistent evidence for the association between work-related SWB and school bullying experiences.

Introduction

Work-related subjective well-being (SWB) is important for workers in terms of lifelong health¹⁾, job performance, and productivity^2,3,4). According to Steptoe et al. (2015), SWB consists of three aspects: evaluative well-being (ie, evaluation of how satisfied people are with their lives), hedonic well-being (ie, feeling or moods), and eudemonic well-being (ie, judgment about the meaning and purpose of life)⁵⁾. Work-related SWB is defined as a work-related aspect of cognitive and emotional evaluations of lives^6,7), which could be categorized: evaluative well-being includes job satisfaction; hedonic well-being includes happiness or positive affect, work engagement, vitality, vigor; and eudemonic well-being includes psychological well-being⁴⁾.

Work-related SWB is affected by psychosocial factors at work. For example, a previous review has reported that job satisfaction, one of the evaluative well-being, is influenced by the nature of work, advancement opportunities, salary, management, working groups, and working conditions^8,9). Work engagement, an aspect of hedonic well-being, has been shown to be strongly influenced by job resources, which are the physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job^10,11,12). In addition, work-related SWB can be affected by life events long ago, as well as short-term factors¹³⁾. Little attention, however, has been paid to the impact of childhood factors on work-related SWB.

Work-related SWB may be negatively affected by school bullying experience. School bullying is defined as aggressive behaviors among children that occur repeatedly and involve a power imbalance favoring the perpetrator¹⁴⁾. Globally, more than one-in-three students aged 13 to15 years old experience school bullying¹⁵⁾. In 39 industrialized countries, 17 million (three in ten) young adolescents admitted to bullying at school¹⁵⁾. The long-term biological, social, and psychological consequences of school bullying are a global problem¹⁶⁾. Previous studies have already shown associations between school bullying and work-related outcomes, such as unemployment^17,18,19,20) and workplace bullying²¹⁾. A previous systematic review and meta-analysis has also clarified the associations between school bullying and SWB related to life²²⁾. Therefore, school bullying may also have a negative impact on work-related SWB. There are some possible mechanisms for the negative impact of school bullying on work-related SWB. As a psychological mechanism, school bullying may lead to lower self-esteem and self-evaluation^23,24), resulting in lower work-related SWB. As a social mechanism, bullying may lead to poor grades, low education²²⁾, and a poor work environment, resulting in lower work-related SWB. As a biological mechanism, continued stress caused by bullying may lead to biological changes in the brain²⁵⁾, resulting in lower physical and mental health and lower work-related SWB. However, evidence has not been accumulated to answer whether bullying also has a negative impact on work-related SWB.

This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence on the association between work-related SWB and experiences of school bullying.

Methods

Study design

The present systematic review was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA 2020) guidelines²⁶⁾. The study has been registered at the UMIN-CTR registry (registration number: UMIN000040513, URL: https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000046183). The registration date is May 26^th, 2020.

Eligibility criteria

Table 1 showed the eligibility criteria of this systematic review. The eligible participants, exposures, comparisons, and outcomes (PECO) were: studies of (P) adult workers who had (E) the experience of bullying at school compared to those with (C) absence of the experience of bullying at school and reporting (O) work-related SWB. Based on the work of Steptoe et al.⁵⁾, SWB in this study included: 1) evaluative well-being (eg, life and job satisfaction), 2) hedonic well-being (eg, moods, such as happiness or positive affect, work engagement, vitality, vigor), and 3) eudemonic well-being (eg, meaning and purpose of life, psychological well-being). The original articles written in English published up to May 5^th, 2022 were included. The study design was not restricted.

Table 1. Eligibility criteria in this systematic review

	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Design	N/A	N/A
Participants	Adult workers (over 18 years old)	University student
Exposures	School bullying including cyber bullying	Bullying in college, at university, or at workplace
Comparisons	Absence of “Exposures”	N/A
Outcomes	Subjective well-being (Steptoe et al., 2015): 1) Evaluative well-being (eg, life and job satisfaction), 2) Hedonic well-being (eg, moods such as happiness or positive affect, work engagement, vitality, vigor), 3) Eudemonic well-being (eg, meaning and purpose of life, psychological well-being)	Quality of life
Article type	Original article	Conference abstract
Language	Written in English	N/A

N/A, not applicable.

Searches strategy and data sources

Databases included PubMed (MEDLINE), PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, and Web of Science. The first systematic search was conducted on April 24^th, 2020, with an additional search conducted on May 5^th, 2022. The search terms were based on previous systematic reviews^22,27,28,29) and were discussed and agreed upon by three of the investigators (MIw, NS, and NK). A researcher in occupational health and bullying (not authors) also reviewed and commented on search terms. The search terms were as follows: (work OR worker OR employ* OR worksite OR (work site) OR workplace OR (work place) OR job OR occupation* OR industr* OR staff*) AND (bully* OR bulli* OR (peer harassment*) OR (peer victim*) OR (peer abuse)) AND (school OR child OR childhood* OR children OR adolescent* OR youth* OR teen* OR teenager*) AND (wellbeing OR well-being OR (well being) OR evaluati* OR satisf* OR hedoni* OR engagement OR happiness OR happy OR emotion* OR affect* OR mood* OR eudaimoni* OR eudemoni* OR (purpose of life) OR (purpose in life) OR (meaning in life) OR (meaning of life).

Selection process

An investigator (MIw) excluded duplicate studies. Eight investigators (MIw, MIi, NS, RK, YM, HA, KN, and HI) in pairs independently assessed the title and abstract of each paper according to the eligibility criteria. They independently reviewed the full text that were included in the first screening. Any disagreements were discussed by each pair of reviewers. The reasons for excluding studies were recorded during the full-text review phase.

Data collection process, data items, and synthesis methods

Data were extracted independently from eligible articles by eight investigators (MIw, MIi, NS, RK, YM, HA, KN, and HI). An investigator (MIw) integrated the following information: authors’ name, publication year, country, the number of participants, demographic characteristics of the participants (ie, age, sex), details of the exposure and comparison (ie, school bullying), outcome variables (ie, work-related SWB) and main results. The results were presented in a narrative format.

Risk of bias assessment

The Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS)³⁰⁾ was used to assess the quality of included studies. Investigators (MIw and HI) independently scored the bias classified as low, high, or unclear. Discrepancies in quality assessment among the investigators were resolved through discussion and consensus among investigators (MIw and HI).

Results

Study selection

The search identified 4,623 articles at the first time and 2,219 at the second time. In total, database searching yielded 6,842 articles (PubMed n=2,905, PsycINFO n=1,519, PsycARTICLE n=49, CINAHL Plus with Full Text n=424, Web of Science n=1,945). After removing duplicates, 5,514 records were screened based on title and abstract; 46 records proceeded to full-text screening. Subsequently, 44 studies that did not meet the criteria for design (n=6), participants (n=17), exposures (n=5), outcomes (n=17), not original article (n=3), and not English (n=1), were excluded. Finally, two studies were included in the systematic qualitative review. The flowchart of study selection is shown in Figure 1.

Fig. 1.

PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram of systematic review search results

Characteristics and results of individual studies

Table 2 shows the characteristics of the included articles. Two recently published cross-sectional studies using retrospective questions met the eligibility criteria^31,32). Both studies examined the long-term effects of school bullying on work-related SWB among workers using secondary data. Of work-related SWB, one study in the United Kingdom treated evaluative well-being (ie, job satisfaction)³¹⁾; another study in Japan treated hedonic well-being (ie, work engagement)³²⁾. No studies were found that examined eudemonic well-being.

Table 2. Characteristics of included cross-sectional studies (n=2)

Author, Year	Country	Participants	n	Age	Women	Exposure	Comparison	Outcome	Results
Drydakis, 2019	United Kingdom	LGB workers (Data were collected in the celebration event for LGBT history month in the United Kingdom)	400	18 years or older (mean age: men 38.2; SD, 10.1 years, women 35.2; SD, 7.8 years)	42%	School-age bullying due to sexual orientation up to 18 years old	This study used frequency of being bullied as an exposure variable (never, rarely, sometimes, frequently or constantly)	Job satisfaction (1= totally dissatisfied to 5=totally satisfied)	The proportion of school bullying experiences was 91% of gay or bisexual men and 84% of lesbian or bisexual women. School-age bullying is negatively associated with job satisfaction among LGBT worker (b=-0.575, p<0.0001).
Iwanaga, 2018	Japan	Workers (the local residents around a metropolitan area in Japan selected randomly)	3,111	20 to 50 years old (mean age: 37.4; SD, 7.3 years)	44%	The experience of being bullied in elementary or junior high school	No experience of being bullied in elementary or junior high school	Work engagement (the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale)	The proportion of school bullying experiences was 42%. The work engagement scores of respondents who were bullied were significantly higher than for people who were not bullied at school (β=0.068, p<0.0001).

LGB, lesbian, gay, and bisexual; LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transexual; SD, standard deviation.

Drydakis (2019)³¹⁾ reported the association between school bullying and job satisfaction among 400 lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) workers in the United Kingdom (mean age, 38.2; women, 42%). Data were collected during a celebration event for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transexual (LGBT) history month in the United Kingdom. This study used the frequency of school-age bullying due to sexual orientation (ie, for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or other sexual orientation minority) up to 18 years old as follows: never, sometimes, frequently or constantly. In the question, examples of bullying included: verbally (eg, name calling), physically (eg, hitting), and socially (eg, spreading rumors, social rejection, extortion and isolation). Outcome variable was job satisfaction (1= totally dissatisfied to 5 = totally satisfied). In results, the proportion of school bullying experiences was 91% among gay or bisexual men and 84% among lesbian or bisexual women. School-age bullying was negatively associated with job satisfaction among LGBT worker (b = -0.575, p<0.0001).

Iwanaga et al. (2018)³²⁾ examined the association between school bullying and work engagement among 3,111 workers in Japan (mean age, 37.4; women, 44%). Data from randomly selected residents around the Japanese metropolitan area who were working were used. Participants were asked whether they had ever been bullied in elementary or junior high school. In the question, being bullied was defined as any psychological suffering by peers, such as leaving out of a group or neglect; physical attack by peers, such as violence, cadging money, or hiding your things. Work engagement (the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale) was used as an outcome variable. The proportion of school bullying experiences was 42%. Work engagement scores of respondents who were bullied were significantly higher than for people who were not bullied at school (β = 0.068, p<0.0001).

Risk of bias

Table 3 shows the summary of the risk of bias assessment using RoBANS. The two included cross-sectional studies^31,32) were given the same rating. In terms of bias in exposure measurement and incomplete outcome data, both studies showed a high risk of bias. There was a low risk of bias in the selection of participants, confounding variables, blinding of outcome assessment, and selective reporting.

Table 3. Summary of risk of bias assessment for the included studies analyzed by RoBANS (n=2)

Domain	Reviewer assessment	Reviewer comments
Drydakis et al., 2019
Selection of participants	Low risk	Exposure and control groups are the same population group.
Confounding variables	Low risk	The major confounding variables were adequately confirmed and adjusted for during the analysis phase.
Exposure measurement	High risk	Data were obtained through self-reported methods.
Blinding of outcome assessment	Low risk	Secondary data analysis.
Incomplete outcome data	High risk	The missing data could affect the study outcome.
Selective reporting	Low risk	All of the expected outcomes were included in the study descriptions.
Iwanaga et al., 2018
Selection of participants	Low risk	Exposure and control groups are the same population group.
Confounding variables	Low risk	The major confounding variables were adequately confirmed and adjusted for during the analysis phase.
Exposure measurement	High risk	Data were obtained through self-reported methods.
Blinding of outcome assessment	Low risk	Secondary data analysis.
Incomplete outcome data	High risk	The missing data could affect the study outcome.
Selective reporting	Low risk	All of the expected outcomes were included in the study descriptions.

RoBANS, the Risk of Bias Assessment tool for Non-randomized Studies.

Discussion

This is the first systematic review to investigate the association between school bullying experiences and work-related SWB (ie, evaluative, hedonic, and eudemonic well-being). The long-term impact of school bullying on work-related SWB is still unknown. The two included studies both used a cross-sectional design and showed a high risk of bias for a part of the study method. The two studies showed results in opposite directions. Accordingly, more studies, with less risk of bias, are needed to clarify these associations. Prospective cohort studies are also needed to clarify the long-term impact of school bullying. This systematic review provided new insights into the determinants of work-related SWB in terms of the long-term impact of life events (ie, school bullying).

Evaluative and hedonic well-being

The conflicting results in the association between school bullying experiences and work-related SWB were obtained by the two studies included in this review. Drydakis (2019) reported that school bullying was negatively associated with job satisfaction (one aspect of evaluative well-being) among British LGB workers³¹⁾; in comparison, Iwanaga et al. (2018) reported that school bullying was positively associated with work engagement (a type of hedonic well-being) among Japanese workers³²⁾. As shown in Table 2, the two studies were similar in terms of year of publication and age and gender of the participants. However, the outcome variable (type of work-related SWB), the exposure variable (school bullying), country of study, and participants were different.

Possible reasons for the conflicting results in the two studies include the following. First, evaluative well-being might have been more susceptible to school bullying than hedonic well-being. It is reported that satisfaction (ie, evaluative well-being) is a judgmental and long-term assessment of life; whereas happiness (ie, hedonic well-being) is reflected by pleasant or unpleasant effects of immediate experiences¹³⁾. Second, the participants of the study by Drydakis, in which school bullying had a negative impact on work-related SWB, were limited to LGB workers³¹⁾. Meanwhile, Iwanaga et al. randomly selected residents in Japan and reported that 42% experienced school bullying³²⁾; Drydakis reported that 91% of gay or bisexual men and 84% of lesbian or bisexual women experienced school bullying in the United Kingdom³¹⁾. The proportion of bullying experiences among LGB workers reported by Drydakis was very high, since a previous study conducted in the United Kingdom reported that 43% of local residents had experienced school bullying³³⁾. It has also been reported that school bullying may be more likely to be related to workplace bullying among LGB persons³¹⁾. In addition, sexual orientation minorities have been reported to be reluctant to disclose their sexual orientation in the workplace for fear of discrimination and bullying³⁴⁾. Circumstances specific to sexual orientation minorities as described above might have reduced work-related SWB.

It is not possible to draw any conclusions about school bullying mechanisms, because of the small number of studies included in this review. As hypothesized, however, evaluative well-being was negatively affected by school bullying. Therefore, evaluative well-being might be affected by one of the following mechanisms mentioned in the background: psychological mechanisms via lowered self-esteem and self-evaluation^23,24); social mechanism via employment with a low educational background and poor working conditions²²⁾; and biological mechanisms via continuous stress and biological changes in the brain²⁵⁾. Contrary to the hypothesis, hedonic well-being appeared to be positively affected by school bullying, although it is unclear whether the results reflect actual conditions. It is possible that hedonic well-being might be more sensitive to recent events¹³⁾, such as psychosocial factors at work, than the above mechanisms. In addition, it might be possible that high work engagement was indicated because the participants of the study by Iwanaga et al. (2018) included many who had experienced posttraumatic growth after being bullied in school³²⁾.

Eudemonic well-being

There are no studies examining the associations between eudemonic well-being and school bullying. Further studies are needed to clarify this association.

Practice and research implication

This systematic review could not draw firm conclusions about the associations between school bullying and work-related SWB. The included studies showed conflicting results on this association. Currently, it is unclear whether occupational health practitioners should view workers’ school bullying experiences negatively. More research and further development in this research area may help to identify the impact of school bullying experiences on work-related SWB. More research is needed with less risk of bias regarding the association between school bullying and work-related SWB.

Limitations

This review had several limitations. First, meta-analysis was not conducted due to the small number of articles included. We could not synthesize the evidence for the association between school bullying experience and work-related SWB. Second, both included studies were cross-sectional designs using retrospective questions, which may have incurred recall bias. Cohort studies are needed to examine the causal relationship between school bullying and work-related SWB. Third, the lack of a unified definition of bullying across the studies limited the integration of the results. Forth, there was a language bias. This review included only articles written in English. Therefore, studies in other languages may have been missed. Fifth, we did not assess publication bias. Sixth, a broader search might have found more studies that met the eligibility criteria. For example, removing school and age-group relevant properties from the search terms would have increased the number of literature hits. Also, a search that included terms related to SWB, such as quality of life, could have picked up more studies on SWB. Future studies may need to screen more literature in order to provide comprehensive evidence of the association between school bullying experiences and work-related SWB.

Conclusions

This review found limited, inconsistent evidence for the association between school bullying experiences and work-related SWB from two cross-sectional studies using retrospective questions. Further well-designed cohort studies are needed to clarify the long-term effect of school bullying on work-related SWB.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank all the authors of the original articles.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

References

• 1.   Diener  E,  Chan  MY. Happy people live longer: subjective well-being contributes to health and longevity. Appl Psychol Health Well-Being. 2011; 3(1): 1-43.
• 2.   Bakker  AB,  Oerlemans  W. Subjective well-being in organizations. The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship 2011; 49: 178-189.
• 3.   Schulte  P,  Vainio  H. Well-being at work—overview and perspective. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010; 36(5): 422-429.
• 4.   Sakuraya  A,  Imamura  K,  Watanabe  K, et al. What kind of intervention is effective for improving subjective well-being among workers? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Psychol. 2020; 11: 528656.
• 5.   Steptoe  A,  Deaton  A,  Stone  AA. Subjective wellbeing, health, and ageing. Lancet. 2015; 385(9968): 640-648.
• 6.   Diener  E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull. 1984; 95(3): 542-575.
• 7.   Diener  E. Subjective well-being. The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. Am Psychol. 2000; 55(1): 34-43.
• 8.   Hoppock  R. Job satisfaction. New York: Harper Brothers; 1935.
• 9.   Aziri  B. Job satisfaction: A literature review. Manag Res Prac. 2011; 3: 77-86.
• 10.   Schaufeli  WB,  Salanova  M,  González-romá  V,  Bakker  AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happiness Stud. 2002; 3(1): 71-92.
• 11.   Bakker  AB,  Schaufeli  WB,  Leiter  MP,  Taris  TW. Work engagement: An emerging concept in occupational health psychology. Work Stress. 2008; 22(3): 187-200.
• 12.   Schaufeli  WB,  Bakker  AB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. J Organ Behav. 2004; 25(3): 293-315.
• 13.   Keyes  CL,  Shmotkin  D,  Ryff  CD. Optimizing well-being: The empirical encounter of two traditions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 82(6): 1007-1022.
• 14.   Gladden  RM,  Vivolo-Kantor  AM,  Hamburger  ME,  Lumpkin  CD. Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. Atlanta, GA. National center for injury prevention and control, centers for disease control and prevention and US department of education 2014. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/bullying-definitions-final-a.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2022.
• 15.  UNICEF. An Everyday Lesson #ENDviolence in Schools 2018. https://www.unicef.org/media/73516/file/An-Everyday-Lesson-ENDviolence-in-Schools-2018.pdf.pdf. Accessed October 1, 2022.
• 16.   Srabstein  JC,  Leventhal  BL. Prevention of bullying-related morbidity and mortality: A call for public health policies. Bull World Health Organ. 2010; 88(6): 403.
• 17.   Strøm  IF,  Thoresen  S,  Wentzel-Larsen  T,  Hjemdal  OK,  Lien  L,  Dyb  G. Exposure to life adversity in high school and later work participation: A longitudinal population-based study. J Adolesc. 2013; 36(6): 1143-1151.
• 18.   Sansone  RA,  Leung  JS,  Wiederman  MW. Self-reported bullying in childhood: Relationships with employment in adulthood. Int J Psychiatry Clin Pract. 2013; 17(1): 64-68.
• 19.   Drydakis  N. Bullying at school and labour market outcomes. Int J Manpow. 2014; 35(8): 1185-1211.
• 20.   Varhama  LM,  Björkqvist  K. Relation between school bullying during adolescence and subsequent long-term unemployment in adulthood in a Finnish sample. Psychol Rep. 2005; 96(2): 269-272.
• 21.   Brendgen  M,  Poulin  F. Continued bullying victimization from childhood to young adulthood: A longitudinal study of mediating and protective factors. J Abnorm Child Psychol. 2018; 46(1): 27-39.
• 22.   Moore  SE,  Norman  RE,  Suetani  S,  Thomas  HJ,  Sly  PD,  Scott  JG. Consequences of bullying victimization in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. World J Psychiatry. 2017; 7(1): 60-76.
• 23.   Kowalski  RM,  Giumetti  GW,  Schroeder  AN,  Lattanner  MR. Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol Bull. 2014; 140(4): 1073-1137.
• 24.   Judge  TA,  Bono  JE,  Erez  A,  Locke  EA. Core self-evaluations and job and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. J Appl Psychol. 2005; 90(2): 257-268.
• 25.   Copeland  WE,  Wolke  D,  Lereya  ST,  Shanahan  L,  Worthman  C,  Costello  EJ. Childhood bullying involvement predicts low-grade systemic inflammation into adulthood. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014; 111(21): 7570-7575.
• 26.   Page  MJ,  McKenzie  JE,  Bossuyt  PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372(71): n71.
• 27.   Carolan  S,  Harris  PR,  Cavanagh  K. Improving employee well-being and effectiveness: Systematic review and meta-analysis of web-based psychological interventions delivered in the workplace. J Med Internet Res. 2017; 19(7): e271.
• 28.   Daniels  K,  Watson  D,  Gedikli  C. Well-being and the social environment of work: A systematic review of intervention studies. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017; 14(8): 918.
• 29.   Tippett  N,  Wolke  D. Socioeconomic status and bullying: a meta-analysis. Am J Public Health. 2014; 104(6): e48-e59.
• 30.   Kim  SY,  Park  JE,  Lee  YJ, et al. Testing a tool for assessing the risk of bias for nonrandomized studies showed moderate reliability and promising validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66(4): 408-414.
• 31.   Drydakis  N. School-age bullying, workplace bullying and job satisfaction: Experiences of LGB people in Britain. Manch Sch. 2019; 87(4): 455-488.
• 32.   Iwanaga  M,  Imamura  K,  Shimazu  A,  Kawakami  N. The impact of being bullied at school on psychological distress and work engagement in a community sample of adult workers in Japan. PLoS One. 2018; 13(5): e0197168.
• 33.   Takizawa  R,  Maughan  B,  Arseneault  L. Adult health outcomes of childhood bullying victimization: Evidence from a five-decade longitudinal British birth cohort. Am J Psychiatry. 2014; 171(7): 777-784.
• 34.   Drydakis  N. Sexual orientation and labour market outcomes. IZA World Labor. 2014; 111.