4.2 Article

Risk and Resilience Measures Related to Psychopathology in Youth

期刊

CHILD PSYCHIATRY & HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 961-972

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10578-021-01296-2

关键词

Resilience; Risk; Childhood adversity; Psychopathology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Childhood adversity exposes youth to multiple negative outcomes. This study examines how a combination of risk and resilience factors impact mental health outcomes in relation to socioeconomic status (SES) and traumatic stressful events (TSEs). The findings highlight the importance of social support as a unique predictor for psychosis spectrum diagnoses and global functioning, and emotional dysregulation as an important predictor for mood disorders. The study underscores the significance of understanding the impact of childhood adversity on maladaptive outcomes within a resilience framework.
Childhood adversity places youth at risk for multiple negative outcomes. The current study aimed to understand how a constellation of risk and resilience factors influenced mental health outcomes as a function of adversities: socioeconomic status (SES) and traumatic stressful events (TSEs). Specifically, we examined outcomes related to psychosis and mood disorders, as well as global clinical functioning. The current study is a longitudinal follow up of 140 participants from the Philadelphia Neurodevelopmental Cohort (PNC) assessed for adversities at Time 1 (Mean age: 14.11 years) and risk, resilience, and clinical outcomes at Time 2 (mean age: 21.54 years). In the context of TSE, a limited set of predictors emerged as important; a more diverse set of moderators emerged in the context of SES. Across adversities, social support was a unique predictor of psychosis spectrum diagnoses and global functioning; emotion dysregulation was an important predictor for mood diagnoses. The current findings underscore the importance of understanding effects of childhood adversity on maladaptive outcomes within a resilience framework.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据