4.5 Review

Stressful life events during adolescence and risk for externalizing and internalizing psychopathology: a meta-analysis

期刊

EUROPEAN CHILD & ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY
卷 26, 期 12, 页码 1409-1422

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00787-017-0996-9

关键词

Stressful life events; Externalizing spectrum; Internalizing spectrum; Meta-analysis; Transaction

资金

  1. Comissionat per a Universitats i Recerca del DIUE, Generalitat de Catalunya [2014SGR1636]
  2. Centre for Biomedical Research in the Mental Health Network (CIBERSAM) Intramural Project [SAM15PI12]
  3. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity [SAF2015-71526-REDT]
  4. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity, Instituto de Salud Carlos III [PI15/00097]
  5. Secretaria d'Universitats i Recerca del Departament d'Empresa i Coneixement de la Generalitat de Catalunya [2017FI-B00258]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main objective of the present research was to analyze the relations between stressful life events and the externalizing and internalizing spectra of psychopathology using meta-analytical procedures. After removing the duplicates, a total of 373 papers were found in a literature search using several bibliographic databases, such as the PsycINFO, Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science. Twenty-seven studies were selected for the meta-analytical analysis after applying different inclusion and exclusion criteria in different phases. The statistical procedure was performed using a random/mixed-effects model based on the correlations found in the studies. Significant positive correlations were found in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies. A transactional effect was then found in the present study. Stressful life events could be a cause, but also a consequence, of psychopathological spectra. The level of controllability of the life events did not affect the results. Special attention should be given to the usage of stressful life events in gene-environment interaction and correlation studies, and also for clinical purposes.

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

4.5
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