4.7 Article

Adverse Childhood Experiences Among US Adolescents Over the Course of the COVID-19 Pandemic

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 151, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2022-060799

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This national, longitudinal survey examined adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) among US adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study found that adolescents with more ACEs at Wave 1 were more likely to experience additional ACEs at Wave 2.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVEA national, longitudinal survey of US adolescents assessed adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) twice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Adolescents with more Wave 1 ACEs were expected to be more likely to experience additional ACEs at Wave 2. METHODSAdolescents aged 13 to 18 (n = 727, Fall 2020; n = 569, Spring 2021) recruited via a national, probability-based panel (survey completion rate Wave 1, 62.1%; Wave 2, 78.3%) responded to questions about household challenges, violence or neglect, and community ACE exposure at Wave 1 and Wave 2 (since Wave 1). Unweighted frequencies and 95% confidence intervals of demographic characteristics and individual ACEs were calculated by using weighted data. Odds ratios examined associations between ACEs by Wave 1 and Wave 2. RESULTSAmong respondents of both survey waves (n = 506), 27.2% experienced violence or abuse, 50.9% experienced a household challenge, and 34.9% experienced a community ACE by Wave 1. By Wave 2, 17.6% experienced 1 new ACE, 6.1% experienced 2 new ACEs and 2.7% experienced 4 or more new ACEs. Those with & GE;4 ACEs by Wave 1 were 2.71 times as likely as those with none to report a new ACE at Wave 2 (confidence interval: 1.18-6.24). CONCLUSIONSThis nationwide, longitudinal study of US adolescents measured exposure to ACEs early in and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Nearly one-third of adolescents experienced a new ACE between survey waves. Prevention and trauma-informed approaches in clinical, school, and community settings may be helpful.

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

4.7
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