Adverse Childhood Experiences
Conditions
Keywords
Adverse childhood experiences, psychosocial functioning, emotion regulation, social information processing, social support
Brief summary
Childhood experiences affect psychosocial well-being and mental health across the life course for better or worse. The aim of the present study is to investigate how adverse childhood experiences before the age of 18 impact psychological functioning in young adulthood, and whether social information processing and emotion regulation may mediate these associations.
Detailed description
The study plans to recruit 5000 young adults aged 18 to 21 representative of the German speaking Swiss population. Participant will be invited to the study by mail. Addresses stem from a Swiss sampling registry (Stichprobenregister SRPH) and are provided by the Swiss Statistical Office. Access to this address lists is reserved to studies of national interest that are funded by the Swiss National Science foundation. Data collection will be conducted online with a REDCap survey following an accelerated cohort design. After the baseline measurement (w1), three follow ups are planned after 1 year (w2), 2 years (w3) and 3 years (w4), resulting in ages 18 to 24 being covered. The primary outcome will be psychosocial functioning across the study period. 1. Primary objective: The primary objective of the study is to analyse the longitudinal associations between childhood experiences, emotion regulation, social information processing, social support and psychosocial functioning in young adults. * Hypothese 1 is that adverse childhood experiences (ACE) are associated with a higher risk for lower psychosocial functioning in young adulthood and 2) that this association is mediated by deficits in emotion regulation, social information processing and lower social support. * Hypothese 2 is that positive childhood experiences are associated with higher social support, adaptive emotion regulation and high well-being in young adulthood and that good relationships with parents and high social support are a protective factor in the presence of adversities. * Hypothese 3 is that among young adults with ACE, higher social support, seeking professional help and more adaptive coping strategies are associated with a more adaptive psychosocial functioning. Secondary objectives are 2. to examine the effect of childhood experiences on emotion regulation and social information processing. 3. to investigate the effects of emotion regulation and social information processing on the quality of friendships and social support. 4. to analyse the longitudinal associations of childhood experiences, emotion regulation, social information processing, social support and the single variables that constitute the composite score of psychosocial functioning, e.g. well-being, psychosocial distress, risk behaviours. 5. to investigate the associations between ACE, emotion regulation and social information processing and seeking professional support. 6. Further exploratory hypotheses investigate whether there are patterns of ACE which show differential associations with emotion regulation, social information processing, support and psychosocial functioning or single variables of psychosocial functioning.
Interventions
None listed
Sponsors
University of Applied Sciences and Arts Northwestern Switzerland
Study design
Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 21 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Age 18 to 21, Living in German-speaking Switzerland, Internet Access
Exclusion criteria
* Insufficient mastery of German
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Latent composite score for psychosocial functioning | a baseline measurement (w1) | A single latent score for overall psychosocial functioning will be created out of the following individual variables using the MPlus software: Well-being (Ryff & Keyes 1995), Internalizing (Spitzer et al., 2011) and externalizing (Renshaw & Cook 2019) psychopathological symptoms, psychosocial burden (Brodbeck et al., 2007) and functioning in social und and work situations (Mundt et al., 2002). A higher score indicates better overall psychological functioning. |
| Functioning in social und and work situations | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 5-item Work and Social Adjustment Scale (Mundt et al., 2002), measuring impairment in different social and work situations. The total score ranges from 0 to 40, with a higher score indicating worse functioning in social and work situations. |
| Externalizing symptoms | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 10-item Externalizing Problems Screener (Renshaw & Cook 2019). Total score ranges from 0 to 40, with a higher score indicating more externalizing symptoms. |
| Internalizing symptoms | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 18-item Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI-18) (Spitzer et al., 2011), containing questions about depressivity, anxiety and somatic symptoms. The total score ranges from 18 to 90, and a higher score indicates more internalizing symptoms. |
| Psychological Well-being | a baseline measurement (w1) | Six dimensions (autonomy, environmental mastery, personal growth, positive relations with others, purpose in life, and self-acceptance) measured with Ryffs Well-being scale (Ryff & Keyes 1995), 42 item Version (Abbott et al., 2010). Scores for the subscales range from 7 to 42, and scores for the total scale from 42 to 294. A higher score indicates better well-being. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Social Support | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 14-Item social support scale (Fydrich et al., 2009). The total score ranges from 14 to 70, with a higher score indicating better social support. |
| Help seeking behaviour | a baseline measurement (w1) | We asked whether participants ever sought professional help due to psychological and social problems. If yes, we asked about whether they sought help in eight different types of support setting (e.g. psychotherapy, general practitioner, psychological service at school). |
| Substance use | a baseline measurement (w1) | Participants were asked how frequently they used tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, party drugs, cocaine/heroin, other drugs and pharmaceutical drugs for non-medical use. For substances they used, they were additionally asked the age of first use and the 4-item Addiction Screener (Schluter et al., 2018). The total score for the addiction screener ranges from 0 to 16, with a higher score indicating worse outcomes. |
| Psychosocial Burden | a baseline measurement (w1) | Participants were asked to which degree they felt burdened in 13 different areas of life, for example school/work, sleep, romantic relationship, physical health, financial situation (Brodbeck et al., 2007). The total score ranges from 0 to 130, with a higher score indicating more burden. |
Other
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Social information processing: Hostile interpretation bias | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 32-item Hostile interpretation bias scale (Dillon et al., 2016). The total score for the hostile scale (16 items) ranges from 0 to 96, with a higher score indicating a more hostile interpretation. |
| Emotion regulation: Self-Efficacy for Managing Emotions | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 7-item Self-Efficacy for Managing Emotions scale (PROMIS; https://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis). The total score ranges from 7 to 49, with a higher score indicating a better self-efficacy for managing emotions. |
| Emotion regulation: Emotion Reactivity | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 21-item Emotion Reactivity Scale (Nock et al., 2008). The total score ranges from 0 to 84, with a higher score indicating a higher emotional reactivity. |
| Emotion regulation: Perseverative Thinking | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 15-item Perseverative Thinking Questionnaire (Ehring et al., 2011).The total score ranges from 0 to 60, with a higher score indicating more preservative thinking. |
| Social information processing: Social Intelligence | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 14-item Tromsø Social Intelligence Scale (Silvera et al., 2001). The total score ranges from 14 to 98, with a higher score indicating a higher social intelligence. |
| Social information processing: Rejection sensitivity | a baseline measurement (w1) | Measured with the 18-item Rejection sensitivity questionnaire (Berenson et al., 2009). The total score ranges from 9 to 54, with a higher score indicating a higher rejection sensitivity. |
Countries
Switzerland
Outcome results
None listed