Partner Effects of Childhood Maltreatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although several studies have shown that childhood maltreatment (CM) is associated with a host of negative consequences including romantic relationship difficulties for victims in adulthood, most overlooked the potential effects on the romantic partner. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to comprehensively synthesize the literature on the association between a person’s CM and their partner’s individual and couple outcomes. We searched PubMed, PsycNET, Medline, CINAHL, and Eric using search strings related to CM and partner. We identified 3,238 articles after removal of duplicates; 28 studies met the inclusion criteria and relied on independent sample. The studies reported associations between a person’s CM and a wide breadth of partner’s negative couple outcomes (e.g., communication, sexuality) as well as intra-individual psychological difficulties (e.g., psychological distress, emotion, and stress reactivity). Meta-analytic results showed significant, but trivial to small associations between a person’s CM and their partner’s lower relationship satisfaction ( r = −.09, 95% CI [−.14, −.04]), higher intimate partner violence ( r = .08, [.05, .12]), and higher psychological distress ( r = .11, [.06, .16]). These associations were similar for women and men and did not differ as a function of sample’s mean age, proportion of cultural diversity, and publication year. These findings suggest that a person’s CM is related to their partner’s outcomes including to the partner’s intra-individual outcomes. Prevention and intervention strategies should acknowledge that a person’s CM may also affect their romantic partner, considering the couple as a reciprocal system, and offer victims’ romantic partners specific services.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".