4.4 Article

Adverse childhood experiences and body dysmorphic symptoms: A meta-analysis

Journal

BODY IMAGE
Volume 40, Issue -, Pages 267-284

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.01.003

Keywords

Adverse childhood experiences; Body dysmorphic disorders; Emotional abuse; Physical abuse; Sexual abuse; Life course

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study found a link between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) symptoms, including abuse, neglect, teasing, and bullying. The study also identified that the type of ACEs, type of sample, and gender of participants moderated the association between ACEs and BDD symptomatology.
Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are considered a risk factor for the development of various forms of mental disorders, including body dysmorphic disorder (BDD). The aim of the present work was to examine the association between ACEs and BDD symptomatology and to identify features of studies that might moderate this association. We conducted a three-level meta-analysis of 27 articles that included 9167 participants. Results showed that the types of ACE examined (total ACE, abuse, neglect, teasing, and bullying) were positively associated with BDD symptomatology. Specifically, a low to moderate association was found for ACE overall, defined as abuse, neglect, bullying, or teasing (r = 0.289, 95% confidence interval (CI) [.240,337), for bullying (r = 0.282, 95% CI [.206,354]), and for abuse (r = 0.223, 95% CI [.169,.276]) were found; and a moderate to large association was found for experienced teasing (r = 0.423, 95% CI [.360,A82]). In addition, moderator analyses of the association between ACE and BDD symptomatology resulted in a predictive model in which the type of ACE, type of sample, and gender of participants moderated the magnitude of the association between ACEs and BDD symptomatology. (C) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available