The association between the COVID-19 pandemic and interpersonal relationships among youth with a child maltreatment history
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic had significant impacts on youth health and well-being. Youth with prior inequities, such as those exposed to child maltreatment, may have experienced greater psychosocial challenges and long-term difficulties than their peers, including sustained interpersonal relationships problems. Given the importance of healthy relationships during adolescence and early adulthood, the significant impact the pandemic had on youth, and the potential disproportionate challenges for youth with a child maltreatment history, the purpose of the present study was to better understand changes in relational conflict among youth with and without a child maltreatment history from the perspectives of youth themselves. Specifically, the aims were to examine if youth child maltreatment history was associated with an increased likelihood of reporting increased conflict with (a) parents, (b) siblings, or (c) intimate partners during the first three years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: = 586, 56.43% female, ages 18 to 21 at Wave 5). Multinomial regressions models were computed to examine whether a youth's child maltreatment history was associated with increased, decreased, or consistent levels of conflict with parents, siblings, and intimate partners in 2020, 2021, and 2022 compared to pre-pandemic levels. Results: Results indicated that compared to youth with no child maltreatment history, youth with a child maltreatment history were more likely to report increased conflict across all three types of relationships during first three years of the pandemic. Discussion: Findings contribute to our understanding of the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and interpersonal relationships among youth who have a child maltreatment history compared to their peers without child maltreatment histories, signal potential long-term challenges or inequities for youth and families with a history of maltreatment, and may inform policy, programming, intervention, and recovery efforts in the post-COVID-19 period, and for future global emergencies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".