Childhood abuse as a risk factor for injection drug use: A systematic review of observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUES: Childhood abuse is a public health challenge with lifelong impacts, including future drug use. However, previous research has been mixed regarding impacts on injection drug use. This systematic review examines the impact of childhood abuse (sexual, physical and emotional) on adult injection drug use. APPROACH: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science and grey literature to identify relevant studies from database inception to 26 September 2018. Studies were eligible if: (i) they were empirical original research published in English; (ii) considered childhood abuse as potential risk factors for lifetime history of injection drug use; and (iii) included adult participants. Risk of bias was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. KEY FINDINGS: Of the 1994 articles screened, 17 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies were conducted in the USA and utilised cross-sectional research designs. All of the 17 studies measured sexual abuse, six studies measured physical abuse and three studies measured emotional abuse; most (N = 11) of which reported a statistically significant and positive association between at least one sub-scale of childhood abuse and injection drug use. IMPLICATIONS: Our findings highlight the need for devising interventions to reduce the harms associated with childhood abuse. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base suggests a significant positive association between experiences of childhood physical abuse and elevated risks of injection drug initiation with mixed results for sexual and emotional abuse.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".