SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.18 issue54Sexual partnerships of people living with HIV / Aids: sexual orientation, sociodemographic, clinical and behavioral aspects author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  


Services on Demand




Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • Have no similar articlesSimilars in SciELO
  • On index processSimilars in Google


Enfermería Global

On-line version ISSN 1695-6141

Enferm. glob. vol.18 n.54 Murcia Apr. 2019  Epub Oct 14, 2019 


Personal and social factors which protect against bullying victimization

María José Simón Saiz1  , Rosa María Fuentes Chacón1  , Margarita Garrido Abejar1  , María Dolores Serrano Parra1  , María Elisa Larrañaga Rubio2  , Santiago Yubero Jiménez2 

1School of Nursing. Castilla-La Mancha University. Cuenca. Spain.

2Department of Psychology. Faculty of Education Sciences and Humanities. Castilla-La Mancha University. Cuenca. Spain.



To determine the prevalence of bullying victims and analyze the influence of personal and social factors on this phenomenon in a population of adolescents.


A descriptive, cross-sectional, and multicenter study, was conducted in sudents aged 15-18 years old in five high schools in Cuenca (Spain) during the 2015-2016 academic year. The study variables were collected via a self-administered questionnaire and included: age, sex, and subscales of the KIDSCREEN-52 questionnaire and the CD-RISC 10 resilience scale.


Data were collected from 844 students (54% girls); the average age of the sample was 16.36 years. The overall prevalence of bullying victims was 29.5%. Multivariate analysis for personal factors showed that being female, more resilient, having a better self-perception, and psychological well-being protected against being a bullying victim. The social-factors model indicated that availability of economic resources, good relationships with parents and friends, and the school environment also had a protective effect.


Bullying is a complex phenomenon which is highly prevalent and has a high social impact. Our work indicates that the characteristics of adolescents, including their capacity for resilience and emotional control, as well as those related to their social support network, are protective factors against bullying. Prevention policies must be multisectoral and multidisciplinary and involve families, school and care environments, and social networks. Primary care nurses, and especially school nurses, could facilitate greater coordination among these different sectors, helping them join forces to promote safe environments for our young people.

Key words: Bullying; Protective factors; KIDSCREEN-52; Resilience


School bullying includes different violent behaviors that develop between peers as a result of their coexistence at school and can have important effects on both physical and mental health1 2. A person is normally considered a victim of bullying when he or she is exposed to an intentional and repeatedly aggressive behavior exercised by peers. It is characterised by an imbalance of power because it is clearly impossible for the victims of bullying to defend themselves3 4 5.The aggressions can vary in nature, but the most common are: physical aggression, including blows, kicks, and pushes; verbal aggression through insults, threats, and manipulations; and relational aggression by manipulating relationships so that a person is ignored or excluded. In recent years cyberbullying has also emerged as another source of harassment linked to the use of new technologies, via mobile phones or the internet4.

We used reports by the local ombudsman and the Cisneros research team as the starting point for studies on school violence in elementary and high school students in our environment6 7. The prevalence figures for the phenomenon are quite variable, ranging from 3.8% estimated in 2010 by the observatory of school coexistence8, to 23.3% published in 2007 in the Cisneros report7. The same occurs at the international level, with prevalence figures greatly differing from one country to another. In the study by Craig et al., values were compared in 40 countries, and data by sex ranged from 4.8% in girls in Sweden to 45% in boys in Lithuania; the figures for Spain are 10.2% in boys and 8% in girls9. In general, the prevalence of bullying victims is greater among boys than among girls9 10and decreases with increasing age1,10.

Despite the wide variability in figures, bullying is a worrying problem. It has an international scope, and is being widely studied. Most research focuses on studying the factors that make children and adolescents more vulnerable to bullying1or what kind of environments or behaviours facilitate or aggravate this aggression11. The short- and long-term consequences that intimidation has on physical and mental health has also been the subject of interest1 2 3 10. However, fewer studies have focused on protective factors as a strategy for promoting health and preventing bullying5.

There is a tendency to think of bullying as a problem related to the process of social interaction which involves protective factors, conceptualized as variables that can prevent or mitigate its impact5. These factors can be both personal and social. Among the personal factors, several studies emphasize resilience, defined as the ability to adapt to adverse circumstances thus allowing the management of stress3. Resilience can be seen as an individual protective resource which adolescents use to effectively face their problems, including victimization12. Social factors can be studied by following the ecological model in which the different microenvironments of the individual, and their family, school, and friends interact with each other, forming a support network that can help avoid or mitigate bullying situations5.

Given all the above, the objectives we set ourselves in this investigative study were:

  • - To determine the prevalence of bullying victims in a population of adolescents attending high-school in the city of Cuenca (Spain).

  • - Analyze the influence of personal and social factors on bullying victimization.



A descriptive, cross-sectional, multicenter, and multi-stage study was conducted in five high schools (HSs) in Cuenca (Spain) during the 2015-2016 academic year. The study target population was approximately 2,500 students. Data were finally collected from 844 adolescents; the sample selection process is detailed infigure 1. The HSs that agreed to participate were contacted and the class group was determined as a random unit in proportion to the number of students from the different grades at each HS. Parental authorizations were collected from underage students and informed consent was obtained from students aged 18 years old. The questionnaire was anonymous, and the confidentiality of the data was guaranteed. The study protocol was approved by the Ministry of Education and by the principals of the participating HSs.

Figure 1. Sample-selection process 


As in similar studies1, victimization was measured using the bullying subscale of the KIDSCREEN-52 questionnaire13-14. This scale consists of three items: (1) Have you been afraid of other girls and boys? (2) Have other girls and boys made fun of you? (3) Have other girls and boys bullied you? The answers are evaluated with a Likert scale that evaluates the frequency (never, seldom, sometimes, often, always), and the answers considered the student’s experiences from the previous week. A student was considered to have been bullied when other student(s) had said or done unpleasant things to him/her or had repeatedly made fun of them over time. Low scores indicated a higher perception of being bullied. The scale showed good reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.769).

Other variables: Based on the literature5, various factors were established, including personal and social factors.

In addition to age and sex, the personal factors encompassed the following variables:

  • - Capacity for resilience was determined using the CD-RISC10 resilience scale15 16, which includes 10 items evaluated on a Likert scale that measures frequency from 0 (absolute) to 4 (almost always). The higher the score, the greater the resilience (for example: “I think of myself as a strong person when dealing with life’s challenges and difficulties.” The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.845.

  • - Physical health was assessed using the KIDSCREEN-52 physical well-being subscale which examines the physical activity and fitness and energy of students. (for example: “In general, how would you say your health is?”). The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.857.

  • - Mental health was evaluated using the psychological well-being subscale of KIDSCREEN-52 which explores positive emotions and life satisfaction (for example: “Have you felt sad?”). The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.888.

  • - Self-perception was determined using the homonymous KIDSCREEN-52 subscale which measures how students perceive their physical appearance and body image and their satisfaction related to this perception (for example: “Have you been worried about the way you look?” or “Would you like to change something about your body?”). The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.733.

The social factors included were:

  • - Financial resources, measured using the economic resources KIDSCREEN-52 subscale that reflects the student’s perception of financial capacity (for example: “Have you had enough money to do the same things as your friends?”). The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.864.

  • - The family atmosphere was assessed using the KIDSCREEN-52 parent-family life subscale which analyses the student’s family atmosphere (for example: “Have you been able talk to your parent(s) when you wanted to?”). The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.885.

  • - Relationships with peers were evaluated with the social support and relationships with friends KIDSCREEN-52 dimension which reflects the type of relationship students have with their peers (for example: “Have you and your friends helped each other?”). The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.828.

  • - The school environment was measured using the KIDSCREEN-52 dimension which explores student’s perceptions about their cognitive capacity and concentration, as well as their feelings about school (for example: “Have you got on well at school?”). The Cronbach’s alpha value for this scale was 0.797.

In all the dimensions of the KIDSCREEN-52 used, the mean scores were standardised to an average of 50 and a standard deviation of 10, as indicated in the handbook for this questionnaire13.

Statistical analysis

The data were entered and analyzed with the SPSS statistical package (version 22).

To analyze the prevalence of victimization by bullying, the social acceptance variable (Bullying) was dichotomized according to previous studies, using one standard deviation as the cut-off point. Students who obtained a score lower than 40 were defined as victims of bullying, and students with values of 40 or more were identified as non-victims1 2.

The analysis was structured into several parts. First, according on the nature of the variables, the most relevant descriptive statistics (percentages, means, and standard deviations) were calculated. Next, Chi-square and Student t tests were used to determine which variables were associated with being victims of bullying. The items which were identified as significant were then introduced into multivariate models. Two logistic regression models were implemented, the first included the personal factors in the equation and the second included the social factors. Not all the factors were considered in a single model because potential interactions between these factors would have skewed the results.


The participants in this study were 844 students aged 15-18 years; their mean age was 16.36 years. Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics of the sample, 55.7% were girls and the most numerous group was adolescents aged between 15 and 16 years (56.2%). The overall prevalence of adolescents who were victims of bullying was 29.5%, and our bivariate analysis showed no differences by sex. The highest prevalence in boys was in the group aged 15-16 years (31.9%) while the opposite occurred in girls: the oldest age group (aged 17-18 years) had the highest prevalence (32.5%). All these data are shown inTable 1.

Student t-tests were used to test the relationship between being a victim of bullying and the main protective factors indicated in the literature differentiating between personal and social factors. With respect to personal factors, adolescent victims of bullying had significantly worse values for resilience capacity (26.37 ± 7.00 vs. 28.95 ± 6.44 in non-victims), self-perception (43.65 ± 7.98 vs. 46.99 ± 7.62 in non-victims), physical well-being (45.23 ± 10.74 vs. 47.77 ± 10.21 in non-victims), and psychological well-being (45.82 ± 9.67 vs. 49.65 ± 9.18 in non-victims). Regarding social factors, adolescent victims of bullying had a lower perception of economic resources (50.08 ± 8.83 vs. 53.41 ± 7.72 in non- victims), worse relationships with their parents (46.54 ± 9.60 vs. 50.84 ± 9.32 in non-victims), less perception of social and peer support (50.87 ± 9.33 vs. 54.62 ± 9.29 in non-victims), and worse relationships in the school setting (45.33 ± 6.31 vs. 48.00 ± 7.69 in non-victims). These results are shown inTable 2.

Finally, we conducted a multivariate analysis to determine the impact of personal and social factors on being a victim of bullying. In our two logistic regression models, we controlled for sex and age. In the first model, we tested the influence of personal factors on being a victim of bullying. The equation indicated that the following factors had a protective effect: being female (β = 0.646,p= 0.013), higher capacity for resilience (β = 0.971;p= 0.024), higher self-perception (β = 0.953,p= 0.000), and greater psychological well-being (β = 0.979,p= 0.039); physical wellbeing was not a significant protective factor (seeTable 3). In the second model we tested the influence of social factors on being a victim of bullying. The following factors were highlighted by the equation as having a protective effect: better economic situation (β = 0.975,p= 0.017), a good relationship with parents (β = 0.975,p= 0.010) and with peers (β = 0.976,p= 0.009), and an adequate adaptation to the school environment (β = 0.975,p= 0.043). These results are shown inTable 4. The adjusted R squared values were 10% in both models.

Table 1. Description of the sample and prevalence of bullying victimization 

Table 2. Relationship between being a victim of bullying and personal and social factors 

Table 3. Logistic regression model. Bullying victimization and personal factors, controlling for sex and age 

Table 4. Logistic regression model. Bullying victimization and social factors, controlling for sex and age 


In our society there is concern about the coexistence problems which occur in educational centers. Our study shows that the prevalence of adolescents who suffer bullying is high, and that there are personal and social factors that can be considered as protective against bullying victimisation. These include greater capacity for resilience, higher levels of satisfaction with their image and life, availability of more economic resources, and better social relationships.

We found that the prevalence of bullying was 29.5%. These values are higher than those reported by Sánchez-Queija et al. who detected a 21.5% prevalence of bullying victimization in 2014, representing an increase with respect to 200617. Using the same methodology we employed in the research reported here, Analitis et al. found slightly higher figures in Spain: 26.1% for boys and 22.1% among girls1. The values obtained at the international level vary widely from 49% in Lithuania to 4% in Sweden9. The variability in prevalence can probably be attributed to cultural, social, and study-design differences, as well as to the prevention policies developed in each country in question1 9. In our study, we found no differences in prevalence by sex or age in our bivariate analyses, although the multivariate analyses indicated that female sex behaved as a protective factor. This is in line with most published research which describes boys as being more susceptible to becoming victims of bullying than girls1 9. Some studies have noted that levels of bullying decrease as age increases1 9. However, we did not find this difference, which may be because of the lower age range of the sample we studied.

In relation to personal factors, adolescents who were not victims of bullying had better levels of perceived psychological well-being, which leads us to suspect that students who experience more positive emotions and whose levels of life satisfaction are higher, are more protected against bullying. The causal relationship has not yet been clearly established in the literature, some studies even indicate that this process could be bidirectional. Other studies have shown that suffering bullying interferes with emotional well-being, and there is a strong association between being a victim of bullying and mental health problems such as depression and anxiety10 18).One article even states that low levels of well-being can be considered a precursor to becoming a victim of bullying18. Our results show that lower levels of resilience are also associated with being a victim of bullying, and so we concluded that resilience is a predictor that protects against bullying. Indeed, our findings are consistent with previous research which points to this same association19. Resilience, or resistance to adversity, in adolescents acts as a buffer against the harmful effects of bullying19. Resilient individuals use stress-coping strategies that prioritize the resolution of everyday problems rather than emotional strategies (e.g., becoming angry, crying, etc.) and this protects against bullying and the presence of depressive symptoms3 4 5. Another aspect of interest is related to self-perception: as found in previous research20, levels of self-perception were lower among victims of bullying, which implies that these individuals have a worse perception of their body image and are less satisfied with their bodies.

Regarding social factors, we found that non-victims of bullying had a better perception of socioeconomic status with respect to their peers, which also concurs with the findings of another previous study21. The published literature suggests that adolescents with a lower socioeconomic level are more at risk of being involved in bullying behavior both as victims and as bullies2.

Family remains an essential protective element for psychological and social development in adolescence, although interaction with peers also occupies a prominent place in this development. A positive relationship between parents and children provides more opportunities for bullying to be prevented or for experiences of bullying to be overcome3 22 23. Similarly, the evidence we report in this work also detected that the family environment plays a protective role against bullying victimization. Students who experience abuse and humiliation at home more easily become involved in other violent incidents, also in the school environment (both as bullied and/or being bullies) 11 21.

The levels of social support and quality of relationships with friends were higher among adolescents who were not victims of bullying, which suggests that they have a greater sense of belonging, are more accepted, and have more skills to form or maintain friendly relationships24. It is known that victims are generally unpopular in groups25and often present difficulties in social relationships11, which leads us to believe that being part of a group protects against bullying and that classmates can have an essential mediating role in these processes.

Adolescents who did not suffer from bullying had a better perception of the school environment. These findings coincide with previous publications that found that schools with high levels of discipline, with the implementation of strict but fair rules, and with engaged and passionate teachers, experienced lower levels of bullying26. Although the data we present here provides no information about the roles of teachers in the prevalence of bullying, some studies indicate that teachers can play a protective role against bullying24and even that teacher interventions to stop bullying are the most effective factor in reducing its prevalence26. A positive school environment promotes respect and allows interactions among all of its members, while environments which lack a pro-social attitude and respect for others encourage bullying situations, and moreover, tend to consider bullying behavior normal and may even reinforce it27.

Study limitations

The main limitation of our research is that it cannot establish cause-effect relationships because it was a cross-sectional study. However, our descriptive analysis has provided us with information on the factors that may be involved in bullying. Thus, follow-up research, especially longitudinal studies, will be necessary to confirm the possible causal effects we identified here.


In short, bullying has a high prevalence, and so it is considered an important social problem that generates concern among parents, teachers, and health professionals because of the serious consequences seen in its victims. From the perspective of health promotion, it is important to study the factors that protect against victimization, as these should form the basis of intervention strategies.

Our work highlights how resilience and feeling good about themselves make adolescents less susceptible to bullying. Activities aimed at promoting emotional control and respect for others allow adolescents to improve these strengths. Another essential factor is the degree of family integration and peer support (friends and colleagues) who form a network around adolescents which helps to protect them against bullies.

Current interventions against bullying are usually conducted in the school environment. However, in our opinion, the phenomenon of bullying victimization is very complex and emerges in other areas, affecting the physical and mental health of those who are bullied, and their relationships with family and friends and their school environment. Therefore, anti-bullying interventions should be multisectoral, and in this sense, primary-care nurses could play an important role in the early detection and prevention of bullying28. Thus, school nurses are starting to become key agents that could facilitate coordination between the family, school, and health settings, helping to promote safer and violence-free environments for our young people29 30.


1. Analitis F, Velderman MK, Ravens-Sieberer U, Detmar S, Erhart M, Herdman M, Berra S, Alonso J, Rajmil L. Being bullied: associated factors in children and adolescents 8 to 18 years old in 11 European countries. Pediatrics. 2009; 123(2):569-77. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-0323 [ Links ]

2. Hidalgo C, Molina T, Molina R, Sepúlveda R, Martínez V, Montaño R, González E, George M. Bullying y calidad de vida relacionada con la salud en adolescentes escolares chilenos. Rev Med Chil. 2015;143:716-23. doi:10.4067/S0034-98872015000600004 [ Links ]

3. Baldry, AC; Farrington, DP. Protective factors as moderators of risk factors in adolescence bullying. Social Psychol of Education. 2005;8:263-84. doi: 10.1007/s11218-005-5866-5 [ Links ]

4. Olweus d. School bullying: development and some important challenges. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2013; 9:751-80. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185516 [ Links ]

5. Hemphill SA, Tollit M, Herrenkohl TI. Protective factors against the impact of school bullying perpetration and victimization on young adult externalizing and internalizing problems. J Sch Violence. 2014;13(1):125-45. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2013.844072 [ Links ]

6. Defensor del Pueblo. Violencia escolar: el maltrato entre iguales en la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria 1999-2006. Madrid: Defensor del Pueblo; 2007. Disponible en: ]

7. Oñate A, Piñuel I. Acoso y violencia escolar en España: Informe Cisneros X. Madrid: IIDEI;2007. 207 p. [ Links ]

8. Díaz MJ, Martínez R, Martín J. Estudio estatal sobre la convivencia escolar en la educación secundaria obligatoria. Ministerio de Educación. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación; 2010. Disponible en: ]

9. Craig W, Harel Y, Fogel H, Dostaler S, Hetland J, Simons B, Molcho M, Gaspar M, Overpeck M, Due P, Pickett W, the HBSC Violence& injuries Prevention focus group and the HBSC Bullying writing group. A cross-national profile of bullying and victimization among adolescents in 40 countries. Int J Public Health. 2009;54 S2:216-24. doi: 10.1007/s00038-009-5413-9 [ Links ]

10. Cosma A, Whitehead R, Neville F, Currie D, Inchley, J. Trends in bullying victimization in Scottish adolescents 1994-2014: changing associations with mental well-being. Int J Public Health. 2017; 62(6):639-46. doi: 10.1007/s00038-017-0965-6 [ Links ]

11. Oliveira WA, Silva JLD, Sampaio JMC, Silva MAI. Students' health: an integrative review on family and bullying. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22(5):1553-64. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232017225.09802015 [ Links ]

12. Ttofi MM, Bowes L, Farrington DP, Lösel F. Protective factors interrupting the continuity from school bullying to later internalizing and externalizing problems: a systematic review of prospective longitudinal studies. J of school violence. 2014; 13:5-38. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2013.857345 [ Links ]

13. Aymerich M, Berra S, Guillamón I, Herdman M, Alonso J, Ravens-Sieberer U, et al. Desarrollo de la versión en español del KIDSCREEN, un cuestionario de calidad de vida para la población infantil y adolescente. Gac Sanit. 2005;19(2):93-102. doi: 10.1157/13074363 [ Links ]

14. Tebe C, Berra S, Herdman M, Aymerich M, Alonso J, Rajmil L. Fiabilidad y validez de la versión española del KIDSCREEN-52 para población infantil y adolescente. Med Clin. 2008;130(17):650-4. doi:.10.1157/13120999 [ Links ]

15. Connor KM, Davidson JRT. Development of a new Resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC). Depress Anxiety. 2003;18(2):76-82. doi: 10.1002/da.10113 [ Links ]

16. Serrano MD, Garrido M, Notario B, Bartolomé R, Solera M, Martínez V. Validez de la escalade resiliencia de Connor-Davidson (10 ítems) en una población de mayores no institucionalizados. Enferm Clín. 2013;23(1):14-21. doi: 10.1016/j.enfcli.2012.11.006 [ Links ]

17. Sánchez MI, García I, Moreno MC. Trend analysis of bullying victimization prevalence in Spanish adolescent youth at school. J Sch Health. 2017;87(6), 457-64. doi: 10.1111/josh.12513 [ Links ]

18. Turner I, Reynolds KJ, Lee E, Subasic E, Bromhead D. Well-being, school climate, and the social identity process: a latent growth model study of bullying perpetration and peer victimization. Sch Psychol Q. 2014;29(3):320-35. doi: 10.1037/spq0000074 [ Links ]

19. Hinduja S, Patchin JW. Cultivating youth resilience to prevent bullying and cyberbulling victimization. Child Abuse & Negl. 2017; 73:51-62. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.010 [ Links ]

20. Lee K, Dale J, Guy A, Wolke D. Bullying and negative appearance feedback among adolescents: Is it objective or misperceived weight that matters? J Adolesc. 2018;63:118-28. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.12.008 [ Links ]

21. Tippett N, Wolke D. Socioeconomic Status and Bullying: A Meta-Analysis. Am J Public Health. 2014; 104(6)e48-59. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.301960 [ Links ]

22. Smigelskas K, Vaiciunas T, Lukoseviciute J, Malinowska-Cieslik M, Melkumova M, Movsesyan E, Zaborskis A. Sufficient social support as a possible preventive factor against fighting and bullying in school children. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(5):870. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15050870 [ Links ]

23. Healy KL, Sanders, MR. Mechanisms through which supportive relationships with parents and peers mitigate victimization, depression and internalizing problems in children bullied by peers. Child Psychiatry & Hum Dev. 2018;(49):800-813. doi: 10.1007/s10578-018-0793-9 [ Links ]

24. Yubero S, Ovejero A, Larrañaga E. Apoyo social percibido en el contexto escolar y victimización entre iguales durante la adolescencia. Rev Psicología Social. 2010; 25(3):283-93. doi: 10.1174/021347410792675589 [ Links ]

25. Ploeg R, Kretschmer T, Salmivalli C, Veenstra R. Defending victims: What does it take to intervene in bullying and how is it rewarded by peers? J Sch Psychol. 2017;65:1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2017.06.002 [ Links ]

26. Mucherah W, Finch H, White T, Thomas K. The relationship of school climate, teacher defending and friends on students' perceptions of bullying in high school. J Adolesc. 2018;62:128-139. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.11.012 [ Links ]

27. Cerezo F. Bullying: análisis de la situación en las aulas españolas. International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy. 2009;9(3):367-78. Disponible en: ]

28. De Miguel M, Benito L, Reyes N, Pedraz MI, Martín B, Olivares J. Detección de víctimas de bullying en un centro de Atención Primaria. Semergen. 2008;34(8):375-8. doi: 10.1016/S1138-3593(08)72344-X [ Links ]

29. Faria CS, Martins CBG. Violencia escolar entre adolescentes: condiciones de vulnerabilidad. Enfermería Global. 2016; 15(42):157-70. doi: 10.6018/eglobal.15.2.206901 [ Links ]

30. Iossi MA, Meirelles EML, Falleiros I, Bomfim MG, Pereira B, Abadio W. Intervenciones antibullying desarrolladas por enfermeros: revisión integradora de la literatura. Enfermería Global 2017; 48:532-47. doi: 10.6018/eglobal.16.4.267971 [ Links ]

Received: July 06, 2018; Accepted: October 21, 2018

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons