MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386765482 · doi:10.1002/wps.21122

Adverse childhood experiences: a meta‐analysis of prevalence and moderators among half a million adults in 206 studies

2023· article· en· W4386765482 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Psychiatry · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild Abuse and Trauma
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersCumming School of Medicine, University of CalgaryMathison Centre for Mental Health Research and EducationUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMedicinePsycINFOPopulationMEDLINEMeta-analysisPsychiatryPoison controlDemographyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure to adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), including maltreatment and family dysfunction, is a major contributor to the global burden of disease and disability. With a large body of international literature on ACEs having emerged over the past 25 years, it is timely to now synthetize the available evidence to estimate the global prevalence of ACEs and, through a series of moderator analyses, determine which populations are at higher risk. We searched studies published between January 1, 1998 and August 5, 2021 in Medline, PsycINFO and Embase. Study inclusion criteria were using the 8- or 10-item ACE Questionnaire (±2 items), reporting the prevalence of ACEs in population samples of adults, and being published in English. The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022348429). In total, 206 studies (208 sample estimates) from 22 countries, with 546,458 adult participants, were included. The pooled prevalence of the five levels of ACEs was: 39.9% (95% CI: 29.8-49.2) for no ACE; 22.4% (95% CI: 14.1-30.6) for one ACE; 13.0% (95% CI: 6.5-19.8) for two ACEs; 8.7% (95% CI: 3.4-14.5) for three ACEs, and 16.1% (95% CI: 8.9-23.5) for four or more ACEs. In subsequent moderation analyses, there was strong evidence that the prevalence of 4+ ACEs was higher in populations with a history of a mental health condition (47.5%; 95% CI: 34.4-60.7) and with substance abuse or addiction (55.2%; 95% CI: 45.5-64.8), as well as in individuals from low-income households (40.5%; 95% CI: 32.9-48.4) and unhoused individuals (59.7%; 95% CI: 56.8-62.4). There was also good evidence that the prevalence of 4+ ACEs was larger in minoritized racial/ethnic groups, particularly when comparing study estimates in populations identifying as Indigenous/Native American (40.8%; 95% CI: 23.1-59.8) to those identifying as White (12.1%; 95% CI: 10.2-14.2) and Asian (5.6%; 95% CI: 2.4-10.2). Thus, ACEs are common in the general population, but there are disparities in their prevalence. They are among the principal antecedent threats to individual well-being and, as such, constitute a pressing social issue globally. Both prevention strategies and downstream interventions are needed to reduce the prevalence and mitigate the severity of the effects of ACEs and thereby reduce their deleterious health consequences on future generations.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.791

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it