High school incompletion and childhood maltreatment among street-involved young people in Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While the link between educational attainment and future health and wellness is well understood, little investigation has considered the potential impacts of distinct forms of childhood maltreatment on high school completion. In the present study, the relationship between five categories of childhood maltreatment (physical, emotional, and sexual abuse, and physical and emotional neglect) and completion of high school education were examined using the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). From September 2005 to May 2013, data were collected for the At-Risk Youth Study (ARYS), a cohort of street-involved young people who use illicit drugs in Vancouver, Canada. We used logistic regression to examine the relationship between childhood maltreatment and high school completion, while controlling for a range of potential confounding variables. Specifically, five separate models for each category of maltreatment and two combined models were employed to examine the relative associations between, and cumulative impact of, different forms of childhood maltreatment and educational attainment. Among 974 young people, 737 (76%) reported not completing high school. In separate multivariable analyses physical abuse, emotional abuse, physical neglect, and emotional neglect remained positively and independently associated with an incomplete high school education. In a combined multivariable model with all forms of childhood maltreatment considered together, emotional abuse (adjusted odds ratio = 2.08; 95% confidence interval: 1.51-2.86) was the only form of maltreatment that remained significantly associated with an incomplete high school education. The cumulative impact assessment indicated a moderate dose-dependent trend where the greater the number of different forms of childhood maltreatment the greater the risk of not completing a high school education. These findings point to the need for trauma-informed interventions to improve educational attainment among vulnerable young people, as well as evidence-based prevention programmes, such as the Nurse-Family Partnership, aimed at supporting at-risk families before maltreatment occurs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".