Intergenerational Cycles of Maltreatment: A Scoping Review of Psychosocial Risk and Protective Factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child maltreatment tends to show intergenerational continuity. However, a significant proportion of maltreated parents break these cycles. Since several studies have investigated risk and protective factors associated with the intergenerational continuity of child maltreatment over the past decades, and no systematic review of the literature is available, this scoping review aimed to summarize studies documenting associated psychosocial risk and protective factors. A secondary objective was to document the prevalence of this phenomenon. A search in six major databases (PsycINFO, Scopus, Medline, Social Work Abstracts, ProQuest Dissertations/Theses, and Web of Science) was conducted. Studies involving human participants, presenting original findings, written in French or English, and of any type of design were included. There was no limit regarding the date of publication, except for theses/dissertations (5 years). A final sample of 51 papers was retained, 33 providing data on risk and protective factors and 18 providing only prevalence data. Results indicate that parents' individual characteristics (e.g., mental health, age), childhood adversity (e.g., multiple forms of adversity), relational (e.g., couples' adjustment, attachment, social support), and contextual factors (e.g., disadvantage, community violence) are relevant to the intergenerational continuity of child maltreatment. Prevalence rates of continuity ranged from 7% to 88%. Major limitations of reviewed studies are discussed. Continued efforts to uncover the mechanisms associated with the intergenerational continuity of child maltreatment using strong methodological designs are necessary. Knowledge in this area could lead to the development of effective prevention strategies (e.g., mental health services for parents, family/dyadic interventions) to break harmful intergenerational cycles of violence.
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 | 0.010 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".