4.6 Article

Differential effect of environmental adversity by gender: Rutter's index of adversity in a group of boys and girls with and without ADHD

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY
卷 159, 期 9, 页码 1556-1562

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ajp.159.9.1556

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH-41314] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study examined the effect of gender in mediating the association between environmental adversity and the risk of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and associated impairments. Method: The authors studied 280 ADHD and 242 healthy comparison probands of both genders who were between the ages of 6 and 17 years. They tested the association between Rutter's indicators of adversity (including family conflict, social class, family size, maternal psychopathology, and paternal criminality) and ADHD, comorbidity, and functioning. Results: Greater levels of environmental adversity were associated with a greater risk for ADHD and other comorbidity in both genders in a dose-dependent fashion. However, learning disability and global functioning were modified by gender, with more detrimental effects observed in boys than in girls, Low social class, maternal psychopathology, and family conflict were significantly associated with psychopathology and functional impairment in the probands, with control for gender, parental ADHD, proband ADHD status, and maternal smoking during pregnancy. Conclusions: Psychosocial adversity in general and low social class, maternal psychopathology, and family conflict in particular increased the risk for ADHD and associated morbidity independently of gender and other risk factors, but gender modified the risk for adverse cognitive and interpersonal outcomes; boys were more vulnerable to the disorder than girls. Because of the difficulties in separating the effects of genetics from environment, these results must be interpreted as provisional until confirmation from twin and adoption studies.

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

4.6
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