4.5 Article

Independent and cumulative impacts of adverse childhood experiences on adolescent subgroups of anxiety and depression

期刊

CHILDREN AND YOUTH SERVICES REVIEW
卷 122, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105885

关键词

Anxiety; Depression; Comorbidity; Adverse childhood experiences; Adolescence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) have significant independent and cumulative impacts on anxiety and depression among 12-17 aged adolescents in the U.S. Having a family member with severe mental illness showed the strongest relationship with anxiety, depression, and both. A dose-response relationship was found between cumulative ACEs and the subgroups, with Anxiety-Depression being the most prevalent group when adolescents had multiple ACEs.
The purpose of this study is to investigate the independent and cumulative impacts of Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) on the subgroups of anxiety and depression among 12-17 aged adolescents in the U.S. A sample of 21,496 cases was derived from the 2017-2018 National Survey of Children's Health (NSCH). Four adolescent subgroups were identified depending on their mental health condition: Anxiety-only (7.2%), Depression-only (1.5%), Anxiety-Depression (6.3%), and None (85.0%). All sociodemographic characteristics such as sex, age, race/ethnicity, and family structure had significant associations with the subgroups. Two multinomial logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the independent and cumulative effects of ACEs on the subgroups. The findings suggested having a family member with severe mental illness showed the strongest relationship with the development of anxiety, depression, and both. A dose-response relationship was found between cumulative ACEs and the subgroups, with Anxiety-Depression as the most prevalent group when adolescents had multiple ACEs. Implications for service providers and future research are discussed.

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